M/S. Suryalatha Spinning Mills Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner (St) Stu-2

This petition assails the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority dated 21'01 '2025 (F;x'P'21' The singular ground of attack is that the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.07'2023 preferred a detailed appeal' in which grounds are elaborated in nine paragraphs (four pages)' The learned Appetlate Authority has reproduced the relevant portion of the order under challenge and thereaJter reached to the conclusion that the appeal has no merits' As per Section IO7 (21 of the Central Goods and Serrrices Tax Act' 2Ol7 (for short the CGST ActJ, the learned Appellate Authority is under statutory obligation to state the points for determination and take a decision thereuPon by assigning reasons is not fulhlled bY the therefor. The said learned APPellate statutory obligation

Learned Sipecial Government pleader for l.ltate Tax supported the impugned order.

No other point is pressed We have he,ard the parties at length and perused tire record. 5

The Appellate Authorit5r has reproduced the major poition of the order of Adjudicating Authority in the impugn ed order. Thereafter. e,tirr: con sideration of learned Appellate Authoritv reads thus: "From rhe above ob.servalions of the Adjudicating Authority it can be deducerl that u,hile concluding the niatter, tnJ Aalurticaiing Authority n.t only referred ttre provisions contained u.raei tfr. CSf Act and the Rrrles made thereunder with that of the Notifications issued, but also took support from the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court. On the other hand, the appellant except raising contentions in the grounds of appeal .oa tfr"i, reiteration made by -their Authorized Represeniative, during the course of personal heariug, failed to sribstentiate the same with reference to the legal provisions or the case law hold.ing the liled on the subject matter. For the reas()rls discussion made above, while the acLion of the Adjudicating Authority in passing the impugned order is fo und to be in order, wturalting no interference, -th"e claims made bv the appellant are found to be unsubstantiated. Consequentlyl the appeal fails ald is accordingly dismissed. In the end, the appeal is Dismissed." (Emphasis Sul:plied) v4 l

Thus, the Appellate Authority has failed to satisfy the statutory manda:e ingrained under Section lO7 (12) of the CGST Act a,d lailed t c assign reasons which courd meet th e grounds taken by the petitioner. The Apex court emphasized tlre need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial proceedings in the case of Kranti Associates (pl Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khanl. T'he relevant portion reads as under: "72.The necirssity of giving reason by a body or autfrority in support of its decision came up for consideration befrtre this Court in sevcr.al cases. Inilially this Court recognised zr sort of demarcation tretween administrative orders ani quasi judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction bet,,r een the two got blurre d and thinned out and virtually rea ched a vanishing pr>;nt in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak v . Union of India 1(11969} 2 SCC 2621. i3..

The exprt s;sion "speaking order" was first coined lry Lord Chancellor Er r :l Cairns in a rather strange context. Tl Le Lord Chancellor, wLLile explaining the ambit of the writ of cer.tiorari, referred to orclers with errors on the face of the reccrd and pointed out th:lt an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order.

This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-jurdicial authority or even an administrative ar-rihority affecting the r.ights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the "inscrutabk: face of a sphinx". 'izoroy e scc +or 5 47 Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds (a) In India the judicial trend reasons, even in administrative affect anyone PrejudiciallY. (b) A quasi-judicia,l authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the i"ia"i p.i.t.iple of justice tlhat justice must not only be done it must also aPPeaJ to be done as well' (d) Recording of reasons also operates. as a valid restraint on iiy possible"arbitrary exercise of 3t'ai"at and quasi-judicial or even administrative Power' (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the iJ.i"r.":-"r"i o, ..t"rr.nt grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural i""ii.. by judicial, -quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superlor has always been decisions, if such to record decisions courts lhl The onsoinq iudicial trend in all countries committed to rule ),i'r"* ..5 -iJ[t"tio""r govern€ulce is in favo-ur of reasoned J..i=ior-r" based on rele'anI facts' This is virtually the lifeblood ;i ffi;-J;ci"ion-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice' (r) Judicial or even quasi-iudicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges inJ authotities who deliver them' A11 these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been obiectivelv considered' This is important for sustaining the litigants' iaith in the justice delivery system'

Since the impugned sketchy and does not deal order of the Appellate Arrthority is with the grounds of the a.ppeal, the same is set aside. The matter is restored to its original fire before th_e learned Appellate Authority. The petitioner shi l appear

Two CD CoPies BSR GJP