Judgment :- Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Heard. 2. These petitions under S.41 of the Kerala Sales tax Act, 1963 (in short the 'Act') are inter linked and shall be governed by this judgment. 3. The only ground raised in these petitions is that the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate' Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode (in short the 'Tribunal') did not give any reason in support of its conclusions and cryptically disposed of the matter. In other words, it is stated that the order is a non-speaking order. Learned counsel for the Revenue stated that no reasons were necessary because factual position justify the conclusion. 4. We find that the Tribunal has devoted three paragraphs to the contentions raised by the parties and thereafter disposed of the appeals with the following conclusions : "4. I have also heard the Addl. State Representative, who defended the order of lower authorities. 5. I have considered the arguments put forth by both parties and also perused the connected appeal memos. 6. As the contentions raised in these appeals are more or less identical, they are heard together and disposed of in this common order. 7. The impugned assessments are set aside and remanded by the Appellate Asst. Commissioner for fresh disposal. The Sales Tax Practitioner has not produced any evidences in support of his contentions. In view of the above, I dismiss the second appeals filed." 5. Reason is the soul of law. Principles of natural justice have assumed a wider horizon these days. Right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. Without reason an order becomes soulless, lifeless. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. Reason pre-supposes logic. The various stages of reasoning should be properly inter linked. Jumping to a particular conclusion overlooking any intermediate fact or event, is a process opposed to reason. The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration as observed by Lord Denning in Brage v. Amalgamated Engineering Union ((1971)1 All. E.R.1149). The requirement of furnishing reasons is a shackle on acting arbitrarily and whimsically. It is the only visible safeguard against possible injustice and arbitrariness. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision, whether it is considered in the set up of purely administrative or quasi-judicial order. E.R.1149). The requirement of furnishing reasons is a shackle on acting arbitrarily and whimsically. It is the only visible safeguard against possible injustice and arbitrariness. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision, whether it is considered in the set up of purely administrative or quasi-judicial order. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions regarded be shown manifestly just and reasonable. The failure to give reason can lead to a very justifiable complaint that there has been a breach of natural justice. Reasons if given substitute objectivity for subjectivity. 6. An order has to be reasoned or speaking order. A speaking order means an order speaking for itself. To put it simply, every order must contain reasons in support of it. Giving of reasons in support of sn order is considered to be the third principle of natural justice; the other two being (a) no man shall be a judge in his own cause (Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa), (b) hear the other side, or both the sides must be heard or no man should be condemned unheard (Audi Altem Partem). A party has a right to know not only the decision but also the reasons in support of the decision. Reasoned orders are necessary if judicial review is to be effective. The condition to record reasons introduces clarity and excludes arbitrariness. The principle requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and it must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. 7. Above being the legal position, order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. We accordingly set aside it and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. The T.R.Cs are disposed of as above.