M/s. RKS Trading Company v. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in iiJlinJ"it tiled therewith' the High Court may be or any other appropriate Writ or o1:-: o' oleased to issue Wirt of j"ir"ring tn" action of the 1st respondent.in detaining the conveyance ii;;,* vide bearing No. GJ1sYY7i)d''k'"g ;ith ooods-(WANOL) and issuing notice in Form GST Mov 07 ,noer'sl"-Jlo=n-r ig(e) oitne iesr R"t' 2017 and demanding which is eouivalent to 200% of tax 200 percent of penalty amount order No.01 in rol.''csi'ft'lov-og o"t"o 04'03"2025' as arbitrary' illegal contrary to the provisio"."fr-t'L'Ccsi n"trrcsT Act' 2017' lhe same is in violation of principles ot *t"ui i"tice' witn-out jurisdiction and consequently set aside the order No.01 i" ;;;;'i-sl Mbv-os aateo o4'o3 2025 as null and void' not valid in the eYe of law' "t"nt"lo,e9')72l- lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition undr:r section 151 cpc praying that in the circumr;tances stated in the affidavit fired irr support or tre petition, in" riign court mav u" pLrl"i'u" pleased to direct rhe 1st respondent to retease ine o-"rirg"N". GJ15YY7B20 alongr with lh^"_S-oqdr forthwith Oy suspenOinQ the, sldgr No.Ol in Form GST Mov 00 ot. o+.oe.zozs, punoing oiJpJJat or *re above writ petition, as otherwise, the p-"titioner will be put to serTere foii anO hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: S_Rt K. RAJI REDDy, SR. COUNSEL REp. FOR "onuuvuii""- SRI VENKATRAM REDEY MANTUR counser for the Respondents: M/s. SWARoop ooRrLLA, SpL Gp for state Tax The Court made the foltowing: ORDER .) THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No .708 3 of 2025 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri K.Raji Reddy, Iearned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur' learned counsel for the petitioner and Swaroop OoriIIa, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for the respondents for the Petitioner submits that 2. Learned Senior Counsel notice dated 27 'O2'2O25' lh-e pursuant to the show cause petitioner promptly preferred its obj ections/ reply on 01'O3'2025 (Annexure P5)' Respondent No'f in turn' passed the impugned order dated o4.o3.2(J25 (Annexure p1). Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that a piain reading of the impugned order shows that respondent no ' t has merely reproduced the objections of the petitioner and without assigning a singular reason as to why the said objections did not suit him' rejected the objections by the impugned order' No reasons are assigned and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside' 2

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner iurther submits that pursuan[ to the show cause notice, the petiticner,s vehicle and goods ha'.,,: been seized by respondent No. t. If the petitioner prefers al apprlication for releasing the said vehicle an cl goods, respondent lrlo.l be directed to decide the application, expeditiously.

4. Learned Special Government pleader for State Tex appearing for the respor-rrients iairly submits that the impugnecl order is not a reasoned orrlr:r and therefore, the same may be set aside. He further underta<es that if the petitioner prefers and application for release of the ,r,:hicle a,d goods, it sha,ll be decided rvithin three working days. 5 We har.e treard the parties on this aspect.

6. Since the lmpugned order is not a reasoned orcter, it runs contrary to the p,lin6iples laid down in Kranti Associates (pl Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khanr. The Supreme Court in the said case emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, ' (2olo) e scc 496 t: I l I 3 quasi-judicial and judicial proceedings The relevant Portion reads as under: "L2.The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority rn consideiation before lhis support of its decisio" ;;'l;;;f"r court in several ..".". ,r,iilrtty ihis court recogrrised a sort o[ ord-ers and quasi-judicial demarcation between "d;;;t;; orders but with the p""""g;';ilit"e the distinction between the virtually reached a tfri"*a-'"ut "t'a two got blurred "o court in A'K' vanishinq point in m;"'j;;s;;"t^ :f ^,thi= ';;;';;;';'? Jioi ot maio t(1s6et 2 scc 2621 1?) "Jitt

14. The expression "speaking order" was {'irsl coined by Lord chancellor Earl Cairns itt'u"u'f'tt.".tt'lg: conlexl; Tn:,^t-::9 t*ptuitting the ambit of the writ of certroratt' ;ffi;;il;' referred to orders *ilh ;;;?';;';'''-ir','t r"t' ol lhe record and ;:ffi;.".ii,-:. "" "'d";';ii J"o'" o" its face' is a speaking order. an order passed 15. This Court always opined that the face 'of by a quasi-juditiut uutrto"ity;t";;;t ;" ad'ministrative authoriry t""i =pt"r It mtrst not be like aifectins the righls "t ;;iil;' It.;i."?*,rule face of a sPhinx"' 47. Summarising the above discussion' this Court holds: (al ln India the judicial trend |.!"o"", even in administrattve alfect anYone Prej udiciallY' (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of has alwaYs been to record decisions, if such dectstons its conclusions' lc) Insistence on recording of reason lria.t"oJ."rple of juslice that justice -J"i Jr". ,PPear Lo be done as well' \ s is meant to serve the must not onlY be done rt I I 4 (d) Recordirg of reasons also op-erates as a valid restraint on any possibtr arbitrarv e> of judicial and quasi-.udiciat or "";";1,;;ir;ffi#;;..ise l?.ffff:;:r:::"'"T. .,5:, extraneous considerationJ.ant discretion has been exercised by the grounds and . by ai"..g..a_! $ X?"1ltl;iill,l#ii? !:"'me as indispensabre.a component observing principles ' r n"tr*i Justice bv judicial, o;r]:-::.",,1: sr_Judrcral and even by admirrisrrarive bodies. (g) Reasons hcilitate the courts. : process ofjudicial revieu, by superior (h) Tfre ongoirrg iudicial lrend in all countries commiire,J ro rule ol taw and (,,nsrirurionar governance t"';;;#;. or rcasoned ffil"j;; T;:,1,:; ;li:*i r""t* ir,i.'I".;;""ri, the rirebrood ng justifuing the principie tnat reasoi rs the soul of j ustice. (r)^Judiciar or (.ven quasi-judicial_ opinions these days cern be as il:::.T.:,"",: i,:, :ln: ""a autr, J.rt'i"-"' i'r,". L,,".. th em AI a.^o,,"]., iI' i; .="'".." -l!:, iiTT:[,#.?::i..] n;:1.,;..,; oblecrivetv cor rsidcred. rnis is impo;;t i; lrtiRanls' fairh in rhe justice d"f ir.t:y";; f) insistence on reason is accountability zrnd transparen requrrement for both juclicial ,:r"raining a cy. (k) Ii a judf e or a quasi irrrtini.r D,,iL^_:L abour hisr lre. ,t..;"io.,- j19.icial authorit5z is not candid ( nough k n o* -h.t r, "; i;; ;;;;'i::f.,U::",:,lffi;, t, : ;l:::lli,l: i; precedent or ro rrinciple" or ir...ri.i,rji;;. , ." (4 Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succrnct. A prt.rence of reasons ;; il;;..:";""Lp reasors., is not to be equat*I with a valid d..r"-"1il""il,"*.f,io.."". \ \ \ 5 (m) lt cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine q"i -":: Ii'.e"t.^i.tt on abuse of judicial powers- Transparency rn -makes the judges. and decision- decision-making not only makers less prone to errtrs but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. lSee Oavia Shapiro in Dgflnce of Judicial Cinior[(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731'37] 'l (nl Since the requirement to record reasons'emanates from the [["J.. a.*rne' of fairness in decision-making' the said a component of human rights and ."q"".^"", i" .,o* was considered part oi-dt""uo"g Jurisprudence' See RUL i"rii"t. Sp"i"11roO+1 ro EHRR 55'l EHRR' at 562 pata 29 EwcA"civ aos (cA)] ;;:,;;;r;; iiru"'"iis of oxlord [2o0 I -Attitlt 6 of the European ffi;;;;1h" court Convention of Human nighit *t'ltll f:1'lt:t'. "adequate and i"t"ffG.tt reasons must be-given for judicial decisions"' (o) In all common law jurisclictions judgments play a vital role in !Jrii"g."p precedents {or the futurl' Therefore'- for development of law, requirement ot gr"ittg t"t"otls for the decision is of the is virtually a part of "due process'" I""."." ""a .-reflrrei "itt'-tatiy . In view of the aforesaid' the impugned order' dated 7. O4.O3.2O25, is accordingly set aside' If the petitioner prefers an application for release of the vehicle and goods' as undertaken by the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax' respondent No.1 shall consid'er and decide the said application within three working days from the date of preferring such application' Liberty is reserved. to the respondents to pass a fresh speaking order on the objections of the Petitioner' 0 , ,# c 6

8. With the zLlbresaid and ,*rithout expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellarec,us petitions pending, if arry, shali stand closed //TRUE COPY// A SD/.K.AMMAJI GIST OFFICER I I[irBio", ilfi |i.iit:?tt state Tax officer, Raj endranagar-1 circte, Rajendranagar, R.R J o mmissioner(sr), Rajendranasar-1 circre, Rajendranasar, ffi f' ffiffi H'Ji,.^r,'6ti-?*:lii#;*, ?t T o 1 2 3 4, 5.

6. BN LS I i HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 ORDER WP.No.7083 of 2025 {E Sr4 16r ,,6,. .,t t- \o?, 11 APn 2W5 {< g-C t Dr. ".1TCt', ( (,1 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {+- 4l o