JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. In respect of assessment year 1994-95 the selling price of coal traded by the Assessee, was fixed at Rs. 1663/- per ton by the Assessing Authority for the purpose of working out taxable turnover under Assessment order dated 3rd December, 1996. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the Assessee filed appeal under Section 9 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, which was numbered as Appeal No. 231 of 1996. The first appellate court, by means of the order dated 20th February, 1997, reduced the rate of sale price of coal to Rs. 863/- per ton and the taxable turnover of the Assessee was accordingly reduced vide order dated 22nd August, 2003. Not being satisfied by the order of the first appellate court so passed, the department and the dealer both filed second appeals under Section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax before the Trade Tax Tribunal, which was numbered as llnd Appeal No. 214 of 1997 and 137 of 1997 respectively. Both the appeals have been decided by the Trade Tax Tribunal, by means of a common judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2003. Under the said judgment and order, the Trade Tax Tribunal had determined the rate of sale price of coal at Rs. 1400/- per ton. The order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal makes an interesting reading. The same is accordingly quoted herein below:
No reason has been assigned behind determination of turnover. Only 1980 A.T.J. Page 178 has been referred without discussing the fact of the case and the judgment of the concerned Court. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by First Appellate Authority is arbitrary not based on even prima facie evidence. He has confirmed the principle of determination of turnover by bast judgment assessment but between the best judgment assessment of two authorities, there cannot be difference of 100%. The best judgment assessment should be nearer to the actual fact. If Rs. 1663/- per ton sale rate has been determined by the Assessing Authority it cannot be said that the bast judgment assessment for sale at the stage of first appeal will be Rs. 863/- per ton. After scrutiny of the judgment passed by the Assessing Authority as well as First Appellate Authority, we find that no substantive reason even prima facie reason has been assigned bv the authorities below. In above circumstances, we think it Just and proper to determine the rate of sale to be Rs. 1400/-per ton. At this rate of Rs. 1400/- per ton the turnover for sale of 7517 ton coal comes to be Rs. 1,05,23,800V-. At the rate of 4% the tax liability comes to be Rs. 4,20,952/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the state deserves to be partly allowed and of the dealer deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER Second appeal No. 214/97 filed by the department is partly allowed determining tax liability to Rs. 4,20,952/-upon the assessee. Tax if not paid by the assessee shall be recovered from him as per rules.
IInd Appeal No. 137/97 & 214/97 Let the original copy of this judgment be placed on the file of second appeal No. 137/97 and certified copy on the file of second appeal No. 214/97.
3. In the opinion of the Court the fault noticed in the order of the lower authority by the Tribunal in the impugned apply squarely qua the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, inasmuch as absolutely no reasons, even prima facie have been recorded for the purposes of determining the rate of sale price of coal. The figure of Rs. 14007- per ton has been worked out by the Tribunal without any reference to any fact whatsoever. The order records that the Tribunal feels the same to be just and proper. In absence of reasons having not been recorded stated with reference to some material on record for arriving at the conclusion that the rate of sale price of coal would be Rs. 1400/- per ton, the same cannot be legally sustained.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment ; The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India and Anr., and ; Union of India v. M.L. Capoor and Ors., has held that reasons are link between the facts and findings recorded. In absence of reasons the findings recorded, are legally not sustainable. This legal situation has further been explained in the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ; S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, and 1990 (3) J.T. 630; Sri S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, wherein recording of reasons has been held to be the third Principles of Natural Justice. It is also settled law that orders are to be judged on reasons recorded therein. (Reference ; Mohindra Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commission, New Delhi and Ors.)
5. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal dated 22nd August, 2003 cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed. The Trade Tax Tribunal is directed to consider and decide the second appeal filed by the applicant-revisionist afresh on merits, in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise must be completed within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Tribunal. The applicant-revisionist is directed to file a certified copy of this order before the Tribunal within fifteen days from today.
6. The present trade tax revision is allowed subject to the observations made herein above. No order as to cost.