The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for orders to be reasoned and speaking, and the necessity of proper application of mind by the authority making the order.

ORDER :

(P. Sam Koshy, J.)

Heard Mr. V. Murali Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. Perused the material on record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the 1st respondent under the Telangana Value Added Tax, 2005 (for short the Act). The tax period in the instant case is 2013-14 and 2014-15 under the Act.

3. The primary challenge to the show cause notice is on the ground of the same being an un-reason and non-speaking show cause notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the petitioner on a notice of reassessment under the Act for the period of 2013-14 and 2014-15, the petitioner had entered appearance and had submitted a detailed reply taking various contentions and grounds in respect of the proceedings drawn. The initial reply was filed on 10.12.2019 and the subsequent was filed on 21.01.2021 respectively. Inspite of various contentions and objections that were raised by the petitioner in their reply, the authorities concerned have not dealt with any of those contentions whatsoever. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the 1st respondent vaguely passed the impugned order by one line observation that “the undersigned construed that there is no valuable reasons to drop the show cause notice”.

5. Though the learned counsel for the respondents has filed their counter affidavit and try to justify the action on the part of the 1st respondent. Nevertheless, there is no dispute to the fact that the impugned order does not reflect the consideration of the reply that the petitioner had submitted to the show cause notice that was initially issued.

6. For ready reference, the operative part of the order under challenge is reproduced herein under:

Accordingly issued and served a show cause notice in VAT FORM 305 A, Dt.02.12.2020 with a request to file their written objections if any on the proposed turnovers and taxes in the notice. Having received the show cause notice, the dealer filed a letter for time (7) days. After expiry of time the undersigned issued Personal Hearing Notice on 11.12.2020 to attended on 21.12.2020. The dealer attended Personal Hearing on 23.01.2021. The undersigned construed that there is no valuable reasons to drop the show cause notice. Hence, passed the orders on the proposed turnovers and taxes in the show cause notice.

7. The impugned order runs into 14 pages, from page Nos.1-14 except for the operative part is only reproduction of the contents of the show cause notice that has been issued.

8. A bare perusal of the reply that the petitioners have submitted would go to show that they had submitted their detailed reply to the show cause notices raising various contentions and objections in respect of the proceedings initiated and the issuance of the show cause notice, but the impugned order is totally silent on these aspects nor is there any reference of those contentions and objections which have been raised by the petitioner in their reply to the show cause notice.

9. So far as the issue of an order to be a reasoned order, so also an order to be a speaking order is by now a well settled position of law, where reasons are considered to be the essence of order. The authorities concerned are not expected to act in a mechanical manner.

10. In the case of Kranti Associates (P) Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan : (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possibl