B. R. ARORA, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions filed by Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, Kharigram, and Bhilwara Spinners Limited, Bhilwara, involve a common question of law and, therefore, I propose to decide both these writ petitions by one common judgment. For the decision of the controversy, the facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 653 of 1991 (Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, Kharigram v. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur) are taken into consideration.
(2.) THE petitioner is assessee under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and is a public company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of blended synthetic yarn. For the assessment year 1987-88 (accounting year October 1, 1985 to September 30, 1986), the petitioner-company was assessed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara. THE assessment was completed by the Commercial Taxes Officer under section 10 (4) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act by his order dated June 7, 1990. A demand of Rs. 7,54,093 was created against the petitioner. In pursuance of the assessment order dated June 7, 1990, a demand notice was issued for Rs. 7,54,093. Dissatisfied with the assessment order dated June 7, 1990, passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara, the petitioner-assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ajmer, and that appeal is still pending and has not yet been decided. THE petitioner-assessee, also, preferred a stay application before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for the stay of the recovery of the demand amount of Rs. 7,54,093 created by the assessment order dated June 7, 1990. THE assessment order dated June 7, 1990, was later on rectified by the assessing authority and a relief of Rs. 15,780 was granted to the petitioner and the amount of demand was reduced from Rs. 7,54,093 to Rs. 7,38,313. THE learned Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, by his order dated November 3, 1990 (annexure 9) considering the stay application filed by the petitioner, rejected the same so far as items Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 11 are concerned and granted partial stay for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,05,713. Aggrieved with this order, annexure 9, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, granting only a partial stay, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order annexure 9, (annexure 10 dated December 18, 1990, in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 1991 : Bhilwara Spinners Limited, Bhilwara v. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur) passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, is not a speaking order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as per the provisions of section 11 (3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") while rejecting the application for grant of stay, it was incumbent on the the part of the Additional Commissioner to record reasons for such rejection. As no reasons have been recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner in rejecting the stay applications filed by the petitioners for the remaining amounts, the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside, so far rejecting the remaining prayer is concerned. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, and he has further submitted that the learned Additional Commissioner has given reasons while rejecting the applications for grant of the stay so far as the other items are concerned. According to him, in the second para of the order, it is specifically mentioned that prima facie there does not appear to be any ground for grant of the stay for items Nos. 1 to 6 and items Nos. 8 to 11, mentioned in the charts. According to the learned counsel, as the learned Additional Commissioner did not find any case for grant of the stay so far as these items are concerned, and he was of the opinion that only prima facie case with respect to item No. 7 is there and he, therefore, granted stay with respect to that item only and the learned counsel for the respondents therefore, submits that it is not a case of non-application of mind or not giving any reasons. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents in both these writ petitions and perused the orders, annexure 9 and annexure 10, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Proviso 3 to sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act Provides 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. The rule regarding giving an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved party and the rule requiring giving reasons in support of an order, are the basic principles of natural justice and both these rules should be observed in their proper spirit and more pretence of compliance with these rules will not satisfy the requirements of the law. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing and only after hearing the petitioners, the order annexure 9, was passed. Now, it has to be seen whether while deciding the applications for stay vide annexure 9, the learned Additional Commissioner had given reasons for rejecting the stay petitions so far as the remaining items are concerned. The learned Additional Commissioner, in his orders not granting the reliefs with respect to the remaining items Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 11, has merely stated that from the perusal of the orders made under section 13, prima facie there does not appear to be any ground for grant of stay with respect to the remaining items Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 11. Whether the reasons given by the learned Additional commissioner in rejecting the stay application of the petitioners for these items by holding that prima facie no case is made out, are sufficient reasons ? The discretion given under section 11 (3) of the Act to the authorities mentioned in this section, viz. , the Commissioner of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) is confined within the clearly defined limits and it should not be exercised arbitrarily or in a fanciful manner. The authorities under the Act have to exercise this discretion after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard and before passing the order he should, also, have to record the reasons for such rejection of the stay applications. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of a judicious disposal and the orders passed by the authority should be predictable one and the parties should know where they stand and should, also, know what were the reasons, which persuaded the authority to reject their their case. According to law, the necessity of recording the reasons is obligatory on the authority as it ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy. The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes at any rate and minimises the arbitrariness and it also, enables the appellate or supervisory court to judge the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the lower court on the basis of these reasons and to see whether the orders passed by the learned lower authority have been passed on sound reasons or on extraneous or irrelevant consideration. Though no particular form or scale of reasons can be prescribed the extent and the nature of reasons depend upon case to case. The order, annexure 9, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner does not gives any reasons why the learned Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, refused to grant stay with respect to the remaining items. In order to decide whether the assessee-appellants have made out a prima facie case or not for the grant of stay, the authority considering the applications for the grant of stay, is required prima facie to look into the question involved in the appeal and to consider the pleas raised by the appellants-assesses and to exercise the discretion vested in it judiciously and assign reasons for the rejection of the stay application. Merely saying that no prima facie case for grant of stay is made out, will not meet the requirements of the law as enshrined in section 11 (3) of the Act. It may further be mentioned that observing that there does not appear any ground for grant of stay, at the most, can be said to be a conclusion arrived at by the authority and not the "reasons", on the basis of which this conclusion has been arrived at. There is a vast difference between the "reasons" and the "conclusion". "reasons" are the link between the materials on which the conclusions are made. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary : Volume II (1968 Edition) "reasons" mean - a consideration, motive or judgment, inducing or confirming a belief or leading to an action or course of action : a rationale ground or motive. The learned Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, while passing order, annexure 9, has merely recorded his conclusion and has not given any reasons, on the basis of which he arrived at this conclusion. The order passed by the learned authority should reveal how the mind is applied to the subject-matter and how the authority came to the conclusion. Merely mentioning that no prima facie case for grant of stay is made out, does not satisfy the requirement of "recording the reasons", as the rule regarding the reasons must be expected to be observed in its proper spirit and should not be a mere pretence of compliance. The order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner in not recording the reasons, does not satisfy this requirement of law and is laconic in nature. As no reasons have been given the order, annexure 9 in S. B. C. W. P. No. 653 of 1991 and order, annexure 10 in S. B. C. W. P. No. 654 of 1991 stand vitiated. In the result, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners, are allowed. The orders, annexure 9 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 653 of 1991 and annexure 10 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 1991, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, are set aside and the learned Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, is directed to dispose of the stay applications filed by the petitioners is accordance with law and till then no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners for recovering the amount of additional tax. Writ petitions allowed. .;