IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 WA.No.981 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.624/1998 Dated 17/12/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LTD. PUNALUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, (SPECIAL CIRCLE), AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX, KOCHI-682015. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX, BOARD OF REVENUE (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMAD RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & M.C.HARI RANI, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.981 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Sri.Muhammad Rafiq, learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents. (2). Though the matter is posted for admission, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, the matter is taken up for final hearing since the issues involved in this case lies in a narrow compass. (3). Ext.P6 order passed by the Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram for the assessment year 1992-1993 was the subject matter before the learned Single Judge. (4). The primary contention of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that, there was total non-application of mind by the Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax, while passing the impugned order dated 18-10-1997. In fact, the learned Single Judge accepted the contentions so canvassed; still refused to remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law. (5). Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner in the writ petition is before us in this writ appeal. (6). Sri.M.Pathros Mathai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant re-iterates the contentions canvassed before the learned Single Judge. That apart, the learned counsel would submit that, when there was non-application of mind and when the order passed by the Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax was not a speaking order, then the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter to the authorities WA.No.981/2008 -2- who had passed the order for re-consideration and for passing fresh order in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax (Ext.P6) require to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, after applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. (7). Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, learned Government Pleader sought to justify the impugned order. (8). The assessing authority had levied interest for non-payment of advance tax for the assessment year 1992-1993. Aggrieved by the levy of interest by the assessing authority, the petitioner had filed representation/application before the Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax for waiver of interest. After receipt of the said application, the Commissioner had called for explanation from the assessee and also had directed him to produce documents in support of his application. In fact, the assessee has produced certain invoices for the assessment year 1992-1993. Though explanation was offered and documents were produced in support of the explanation, the Commissioner has not looked into those and has not passed a speaking order. An order which does not assign any reason whatsoever is not an order in the eye of law. This aspect of the matter is taken note of by the learned Single Judge; but, for other reasons has not remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh disposal. (9). In our opinion, the order so passed by the learned Single WA.No.981/2008 -3- Judge cannot be sustained by us since the order passed by the Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax (Ext.P6) is a non-speaking order. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax require to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded back to the Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax for fresh disposal. Accordingly, we pass the following: Order i). The writ appeal is allowed. ii). The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. iii). The order passed by the Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax is set aside. iv). The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax for fresh disposal in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made by us in the course of the order. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE MS/dk.