IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9893 of 2007 M/S SHAMA MACHINERY A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, AT CHURIPATTI, P.O. & P.S. KISHANGANJ, DISTRICT KISHANGANJ THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MD. ILYAS SON OF LATE HAKIMUDDIN ALIAS ABDUL HAKIM. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLOLECTOR, KISHANGANJ 3. DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OFFICER, KISHANGANJ 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KISHANGANJ ANCHAL, KISHANGANJ. ----------- 2 22/02/2010 The petitioner has challenged the certificate proceeding which is Certificate Case No. 1 of 2002-03. This proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of sales tax assessment made against him for financial year 1986-87 to 1990-91. The requisition seems to have been filed by the sales tax authorities before the Certificate Officer, Kishanganj. The first submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the requisition in question is invalid in breach of section 5 of the Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act) since it is neither properly dated, signed or verified. The other objection against the proceeding is that by cursory one line order the objection of the petitioner filed under section 9 of the Act has been rejected by the - 2 - Certificate Officer as would be evident from the order dated 11.07.2007, annexure-3 to the writ application. The first question cannot be answered by this Court in absence of the original requisition having been brought on record either by the petitioner or by the State. Certified copy does not give the true picture but this is a matter which can be very well looked into by the Certificate Officer. The second objection merits consideration because it is well settled law that the person proceeded against in a certificate case has a valid right to raise objection under section 9 of the Act and those objections raised therein need to be answered by the Certificate Officer under section 10 of the Act. If a cursory order is passed stating that the objections merits no consideration which is rejected, then it becomes very difficult for a Court of law to apply itself as to what had weighed with the Certificate Officer in rejecting such objection. Non speaking order of the kind which has been passed by the Certificate Officer is of no good specially when the said order is put under judicial scrutiny like the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact such orders have been deprecated by the Courts on many a - 3 - occasion. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since there is cursory rejection of the valid objection of the petitioner with regard to limitation and maintainability of the certificate case on the ground of claim being time barred has also not been considered. In the way the impugned order dated 11.7.2007 has been passed, it is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Certificate Officer with a direction that he shall pass a speaking order on the objection petition of the petitioner dated 21.09.2006 as contained in Annexure-2 and if the proceeding subsists he shall proceed in the matter further. This writ application is allowed with the above direction. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)