ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy - The petitioner an internet service operator extends services of broadband, web hosting, etc., and in order to access the services, a CD-Rom is provided to its customers from whom service charges are recovered. On an earlier occasion when the order of the first respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, assessing the petitioner to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, (for short, "the Act"), was challenged in an appeal under section 20 of the Act before the first appellate authority, who dismissed the appeal against which second appeal was preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, (for short, "the KAT"), whence the orders of assessment and in appeal were set aside and the proceeding remitted to the assessing officer. On remand the order of reassessment was subject to certain terms and conditions. That order when carried in a revision petition before a Division Bench of this court, the order of the KAT was set aside and the proceeding remitted to the assessing officer for fresh assessment extending an opportunity to the petitioner to file additional objections to the proposed assessment, subject to certain conditions. On remand, the first respondent took on record the petitioner's replies dated January 31, 2009 and June 20, 2009, inter alia, contending that the internet services did not involve sale of CD-ROM and that services were subjected to service tax. Nevertheless, the first respondent by orders of even dated July 3, 2009, annexure F series, passed the orders of assessments for the years 1999 through to 2004. Hence these petitions. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders impugned are not speaking orders and in addition the decision relied upon by the assessing officer in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited v. State of Karnataka [2009] 22 VST 465 is set aside by the apex court in Special Leave Petition (Civil Appeal) No. 4481 of 2009 dated March 2, 2009. An examination of the orders impugned ex facie animate non-application of mind, as the assessing officer without adverting to the contentions advanced by the petitioner in the objections and recording findings over the same, held the objections untenable by placing reliance upon the reported opinion of this court in Bharti Airtel Limited v. State of Karnataka [2009] 22 VST 465. An examination of the orders impugned ex facie animate non-application of mind, as the assessing officer without adverting to the contentions advanced by the petitioner in the objections and recording findings over the same, held the objections untenable by placing reliance upon the reported opinion of this court in Bharti Airtel Limited v. State of Karnataka [2009] 22 VST 465. Application of mind means consideration of the contentions advanced by the parties with reference to proved facts and the law applicable to the said facts. It is for the assessing officer to consider all relevant material and eschew irrelevant material to record findings, and conclusions. The apex court in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore [2005] 273 ITR 56; [2005] 2 SCC 329, held thus : "Recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure. Reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at. They substitute subjectivity with objectivity. As observed in Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree reported in [1974] ICR 120, failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice." In the present context, the following observations of the apex court in the case of Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers' Union AIR 1973 SC 2758 , is apposite : "... The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion ..." Keeping in mind the authoritative pronouncements of the apex court over the recording of reasons, findings and conclusions, in the instant case none of them are animated in the orders impugned. Yet another reason to interfere with the orders impugned is that the decision in Bharti Airtel Limited's case [2009] 22 VST 465, was set aside by the apex court in the SLP Civil (Appeal) and hence reliance placed upon the said decision to negate the objections of the petitioner is unavailable to the assessing authority. Yet another reason to interfere with the orders impugned is that the decision in Bharti Airtel Limited's case [2009] 22 VST 465, was set aside by the apex court in the SLP Civil (Appeal) and hence reliance placed upon the said decision to negate the objections of the petitioner is unavailable to the assessing authority. In the circumstances, the orders, annexure F series, of the first respondent - assessing officer being illegal cannot be sustained, and as a consequence, the demand notices, annexure G series, are also unsustainable. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The assessment orders, annexure F series and demand notices, annexure G series, are quashed. The proceeding is remitted with a direction to consider afresh the petitioner's objections in the light of the earlier orders of this court in the revision proceedings and the observations supra, after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass the orders thereon, in accordance with law.