IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.289 of 2007 ----------------------------------------- T.A.NO.478 OF 2004 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE - ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH, 2007) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002) .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.ZUBAIDA, M/S.REMSHID ENTERPRISES, GOPAL STREET, KANNUR - 1. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. --------------------------------------------- S.T. Rev.No.289 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th November, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu, C.J. The assessee is a dealer, registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“KGST Act” for short) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (“CST Act” for short). (2) The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. (3) The assessing authority has completed the assessment, quantifying the tax liability based on certain informations received by them from the Intelligence Wing of the Department also taking into consideration the compounding of the offence by the assessee. (4) The orders passed by the assessing authority was modified by the first appellate authority in the appeal filed by the assessee. (5) The assessee had carried the matter by filing a second appeal, in T.A.No.478 of 2004, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, though notices the several contentions canvassed by the assessee's representative, does not answer any one of them, but only confirms the orders passed by the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority. In fact, at paragraph 2, the Tribunal notices the several contentions raised by the S.T.Rev.289 of 2007 - 2 - assessee's representative and those contentions are answered by the Tribunal in one paragraph. That is paragraph 5. In that, the Tribunal has only stated as under: “With regard to the other additions based on inspections and vehicle checking the addition made by the authority below is found just and reasonable”. (6) The orders passed by the Tribunal is attacked by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, contending, that, the orders so passed is a non-speaking order. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has invited our attention to the observations made by this Court in the case of Girish Kumar, K.E. v. Sales Tax Appellate Assistant Commissioner [(2001) 122 STC 546 (Ker.)]. In the said decision, the Court has observed as under: “It is true that the appellate authority should not lightly discard findings of fact based on evidence. It is open to the appellate authority to reappreciate the facts and reach a conclusion at divergence with that of the lower authority. Hence it is the duty of the appellate authority to assess the law and facts independently. If it finds that the findings arrived at by the authorities below are correct and the provisions of law have been complied with properly, then it can agree with the lower authority; otherwise it can interfere with the orders of the subordinate authorities. It may be true that in many cases it may agree with the findings of the lower authorities. But that does not mean that the Tribunal has not got power to assess S.T.Rev.289 of 2007 - 3 - the evidence independently. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has not contributed any single independent finding. It has only approved the order of the lower authorities without stating any further. The arguments of the counsel for the appellant have not been considered on their proper perspective”. (7) Keeping in view what has been said by this Court in the aforesaid decision, we have carefully looked into the orders passed by the Tribunal. We are of the opinion, that, the said order is only a non-speaking order and that order cannot be sustained by any Court, much less a revision Court. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after considering each one of the contentions canvassed by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal. (8) Accordingly, we pass the following: Order (i) The revision petition is disposed of. (ii) The order passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.478/2004, dated 26th March, 2007, is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to reconsider the assertions and contentions canvassed by the assessee's representative, after affording an opportunity of hearing the assessee's representative once over again and, thereafter, pass a speaking order. S.T.Rev.289 of 2007 - 4 - (iv) All the contentions of the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-