tnl/s. Survalatha soinninq Mills Limited v. '1 . Deputy Commissioner (ST) STU-2

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedtoissueaWritofMandamusoranyotherappropriatewritororderor direction setting aside the adjudication order dated 261712023 passed by the RespondentunderSectionT3oftheGsTActfortheperiodNovember,20lSto January, 2019 as well as the appellate order dated 2110112025 passed by the 2nd Respondent confirming the adjudication order of the 1st Respondent as both are illegal, non-est in Law for not having any signature or authentication and also in violation of section 75(7) and 107(12) of the GST Act, principles of natural justice. IAN o: 10F 2025 petition und.r Section 151 cpc praying that in the circrrmstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court m ay be preased to grant interim stay ()1, recovery of the disputed amou_nis in pur"rr,.,"" dated 2672023 artd 21r1t2025 passed by the 1St and the 2rd Respondents respectivery, pend,rg disposar of the writ petition as otherwise the petitioner wirl be put to severe loss and hardship. "r;;;:r. Counset for the petitioner: counserrortheRespon'"t#islr'iJ;BB,Jfl,t|ritH[,Ff SRI KARTHTK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDy Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B.JITHENDER, &.tT;I=ol* The Court made the following: ORDER 3Fi_JS,.,??Yls$*t,.^? DEPUTY soLIcIToR GENEHinI or IruoIa THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITI ON No.4481 of2025 oRDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy' learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T'Chaitanya Kiran' learned counsel representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla' learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for respondent Nos' I to 3'

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 therefor. The said decision thereuPon by assigning reasons statutory obligation is not fulhlled bY the learned APPellate *--''1 2 Authoritl. a,d therefore, the appellate order may be se:. aside and the matter may tre remitted back before the Appellate Arthority.

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

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

6. 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 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. -their 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, claims made bv the appellant are found to be unsubstantiated. Consequentlyl the appeal fails ald is accordingly dismissed. -th"e In the end, the appeal is Dismissed." (Emphasis Sul:plied) v4 l J 7 Section lO7 (l2l of the CGST Act reads thus: 'The order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state- the points for deiermination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision." B. karned counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that as per Section lo7(l2l of the CGST Act, the learned Appellate Authority is obliged to state the points for determination and take a decision thereupon by assigning adequate reasons' This statutory provision, in our opinion, is nothing but codifrcation of principles of natural justice in a statutory language ' The purpose is clear that application of mind is ensured and any conclusion arrived at must be founded upon justifiable reasons' If the appeal of the petitioner is perused, it shows that the petitioner has devoted almost four pages only on 'Grounds' taken against the adjudication order dated 26.07.2023' The learned Appellate Authority mergly reproduced the portion of the order impugned before him and thereafter opined that the appellant 'except raising contentions in the grounds of appeal reiterating its stand' failed to substantiate the same,. we wonder how the grounds of appeal can be ignored by holding that the appellant has merely raised the contentions in the grounds of appeal' No reasons are I 4 assigned as to \rrhy said grounds taken in the appea t were not found trustworthy by learned Appellate Authority.

9. 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..

14. 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.

15. 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 to record decisions has always been decisions, if such (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 courts lhl The onsoinq iudicial trend in all countries committed to rule is in favo-ur of reasoned ),i'r"* ..5 -iJ[t"tio""r govern€ulce 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' 6 J fu) Insistenr:e on reason is a accountability and transparency requirement for bot.h judicial (k) If a ludge or a quasi-judicial authority is not can<lid enough about his/LLer decision-making process ihen it is imr>ossible to know whellrer the person deciding is faithful to the ioctrine oi precedent ,t:- to principies of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or .,rubber-stamp rr:asons,, is not to be erlrated with a valid decision_making procesri. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sinr: qua non of restrain t on abuse of judiciai po*"-.". Transp,,rrency in decision-ma <ing not only makes tire judges and decision- makers less prone to errors but also rnake-s them srubject to b;roa!er-. sc rutiny. (See David Shapiro io Defence cf Jud.icial Candor [(19tt7) 10O Harvard Law Review 731_37].) {n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad docr.r ine of fairness in decision_making, the said requiremeni is now virtually a component of fruman rights and was. considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See RuL Toija_v. Spatn[(r9941 t9- EHRR SS51 eHnh, at 562 para 29 and Anyau. Uniuersitg of Oxford IZOOf AWCA Civ 4CrS (CA)l , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the J:Duropean Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent rczrsons must be given for judicial decisions,; (o) In a1l comrron law jurisdictions judgments play a vil.al role in setting up precedents for the futurL. Therefore, fJr dev,:lopment of law, requit-ement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence ald is virtually a part of "due process."

10. Since the impugned order of the Appellate Arrthority is sketchy and does not deal 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 '7 before the learned Appellate Authority on 03'03'2025 at 11'30 AM' The learned Appellate Authority shall rehear the petitioner and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law' -.. 1 1. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing any oPlnlon on the merits of the case' No costs' Interlocutory applications, if any pending' shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, .l . The Deputy Commissioner (ST) STU-2' Begumpet Division' Hyderabad' 2.TheAppellateJointCommissioner,(STXFAC),PunjaguttaDivision' The Chief Secretary and Special Chief Secretary to^Gwernment (FAC)' State ill S,jijrti'il;i, s6cretariat, Hvderabad' State of relangana' Hyderabad. 3 Jeevan 4 5 7 B #?o.s:',,"JflU #',L'"'fl,",l,5litJi"o"",'::til'ff:li'{0":9ii'otd3.''""r' One CC to SSI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY' Advocate'[OPUC] One CC to SRI B.JITHENDER' CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL IOPUCI onecctosR,GAD,IiX5llj:iYti;3ff,',Tlf,?lj3:Io,5fr'du*'o' OF lNDIA, High Court for tn TwoCCstoSPLGPFoRSTATETAX,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

9. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 2OtO2t2O2S ORDER WP.No.4481 of 2O2S il- (.' it, * 1{ tHE Sra 14- + > z a 2 6 npn UZs 0r.+i;ii r'r ri' 'i1 '_\ a DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \ 1 )^