MATHUR, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, the petitioner M/s. Choudhary Construction Company seeks direction to quash the order dated 16. 05. 2001 (Annexure-7) passed by the first respondent Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Jodhpur, whereby he rejected the petitioner's application for the recovery of the demand of Rs. 83,565/- pending appeal before him.
(2.) THE petitioner is as a construction company undertaking civil construction work. It was assessed at the hands of the second respondent Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali-Marwar for the assessment year 1998-99. He was served with a demand notice dated 2. 03. 2001 for a sum of Rs. 1,73,565/ -. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 90,000/- was deposited by the petitioner Company through an Account payee Cheque. Thus, the balance outstanding disputed demand is only Rs. 83,565/ -. THE petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 84 (7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 before the first respondent. Along with the appeal, he also submitted an application for stay of the recovery under Section 42 (4) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. THE application has been rejected by a cryptic order dated 16. 5. 2001, which reads as follows :- *** Mr. Mahendra Dave learned counsel for the petitioner assessee has tried to raise certain contentions on merit to convince that the demand raised is wholly without jurisdiction, which I have not permitted as the main appeal filed under Section 84 (7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act is still pending before the first respondent. However, there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel that the order of the Dy. Commissioner rejecting the application for stay being a cryptic and non- speaking is not only illegal but a void order not sustainable in the eye of law. It is contended by the learned counsel that it was the duty of the second respondent to record reasons for refusing the stay. He has referred to two decisions of this Court firstly Rajesh Motors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1) and Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur In both the cases, it is held that it is the duty of the appellate court to record reasons for refusing the stay pending appeal. Mr. Sangeet Lodha learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that both the cases cited by the learned counsel has no application to the instant case as the ratio laid down in the said cases is based on the (iii) proviso of Section 11 (3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, wherein a duty is cast on the appellate authority to record reasons for rejection of the stay application. However, under the new Act known as Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, under Section 42 (4) the legislature in its wisdom omitted the words ``shall also record reasons for such rejection. '' Thus, it is submitted that there is no requirement of recording reasons while rejecting the application for stay. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the Apex Court and this Court has depricated the practice of granting interim order in a matter pertaining to the revenue of the State. The learned counsel has referred to decisions of the Apex Court in Assistant Collector, Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Ltd. (3), Siliguri Municipality & Ors. vs. Amalendu Das & Ors. (4), and Union Territory of Pondicherry & Ors. vs. P. V. Suresh & Ors. In order to better appreciate the contentions, it would be convenience to reproduce Section 11 (3) with (iii) proviso of the Sales Tax Act, 1954 and Section 42 (4) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994:- ``11 (3) : In default of the payment of tax payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the amount of tax shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue : Provided that where an assessee has presented an appeal under Section 13, the Commissioner, or the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) subject to such limits and conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf may on an application in writing from the assessee, stay the recovery of the disputed amount of tax or any part thereof, during the pendency of the appeal if the assessee furnished sufficient security to his satisfaction in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed : Provided further that where recovery of tax or any part thereof is statyed under the preceding proviso, the amount of such tax shall be recoverable with interest at the prescribed rate on the amount ultimately found due; and such interest shall be payable on such amount from the date the tax first became due. Provided also that the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) shall, before rejecting an application under the first proviso, give the applicant, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and shall also record reasons for such rejection. '' Under the Scheme of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, an appeal against the order of assessment can be filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 84 (7) and a stay application under sub-clause (4) of Section 42 of the Act of 1994. The sub- clause (4) of Section 42 reads as follows :- `` (4) Where an assessee or a person has presented an appeal to the appellate authority against an order passed by an assessing authority or any other officer, the said appellate authority, after registering such appeal and after having heard heard the appellant and the assessing authority or officer or any representation thereof, may stay the recovery of the disputed amount of tax or demand or any part thereof till the disposal of the appeal by him, on the condition that the said assessee or the person furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority or the officer, as the case may be, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. '' It is, thus evident that both the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner assessee are not applicable as under Section 42 (4) the words ``reasons to be recorded'' do not find place. However, even when statute does not lay down expressly requirement of recording of reasons or such requirement is omitted, it cannot be understood that, legisture has authorised to pass whimsical and arbitrary order. Giving the reasons in support of the order is considered to be the essential ingredient of principle of natural justice because the party is entitled to know the reasons in support of the decision. However, there is no prescribed form. The reasons recorded by the adjudicating authority need not be detailed or elaborate. The requirement of the recording of the reasons will be satisfied if the order indicate that appellate authority has applied its mind to the facts of the case and relevant law on the point and further that He has given a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties affected. The appellate authority is not required to deal with the stay application at per with an injunction application dealing with, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. However, practice of recording of ipsi dixit reason or order in cyclostyled proforma can also be not approved. We are of the view that the impugned order falls in the category of a whimsical and arbitrary order. No public authority can be permitted to exercise statutory powers in such a cavalier fashion. Thus, the impugned order dated 16. 5. 2001 deserves tobe quashed and set aside.
(3.) THAT appellate or revisional authorities dealing with the tax matters are expected to keep in mind the guide-lines given by the Apex Court in the matter and grant an interim relief dealing with the public revenue. In Union Territory of Pondicherry & Ors. vs. P. V. Suresh & Ors. (supra) the Apex Court has observed that passing of interim order is not and cannot be a matter of course- nor a matter of charity. The Court also observed that in the matter touching the public revenue the courts must ought to be more cautious. In Siliguri Municipality & Ors. vs. Amalendu Das & Ors. (supra) the Court has observed that the stay of recovery of tax should be granted only in exceptional cases after carefully examining the matter. The Court also observed that the adjudicating authority should maintain a uniform practice in passing such interim orders. ;