JUDGMENT : ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist as well as Mr. Sanjay Sareen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the impugned order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-1, Lucknow in Appeal No. 37 of 2010 for the assessment year 2004-05 under Section 15 A(1)(a) thereby upholding the penalty imposed upon the applicant by the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Joint Commissioner(A)-5, Commercial Tax, Lucknow. 3. The applicant is a registered dealer under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The applicant with a view to render the services to producers and consumers alike by procuring food grains at the notified prices, providing buffer stocks of food grains and essential commodities and acts as an agency of the Union of India. It works under the instructions of the Government of India issued from time to time on "No Profit and no loss basis". It has further been submitted that the procurement and distribution of food grains is regulated by various control orders as well as orders and directions of the Union of India and State of U.P. The food grains are also collected under the various orders passed under the Essential Commodities Act and under the levy procurement scheme of the "Price Support Scheme" The F.C.I. is thus entrusted interalia with the duty of collection of food grains for and on behalf of the State of U.P. and for storing the same for the Central Pool. 4. That during the course of assessment proceedings a finding was recorded that the applicant had deposited certain tax beyond time and as such an interest of Rs.1,49,158/- was imposed vide order dated 23.03.2007. The amount of interest was paid by the applicant on 03.01.2008 and subsequently by means of order dated 10.07.2009 penalty was imposed under Section 15-A(1)(a) amounting to Rs.34,21,902/- has been imposed and a finding has been recorded that since the applicant has not deposited the amount of interest in time and therefore justified the levy of penalty. Subsequently in the year 2004-05 assessment was completed on 23.03.2007 under Rule 41(8) wherein book value was accepted by the petitioner and for the said assessment year 2003-04 to 2007-08 tax of Rs. 12,43,13,242/- imposed by the assessment order was deleted. 5. Subsequently in the year 2004-05 assessment was completed on 23.03.2007 under Rule 41(8) wherein book value was accepted by the petitioner and for the said assessment year 2003-04 to 2007-08 tax of Rs. 12,43,13,242/- imposed by the assessment order was deleted. 5. The applicant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was rejected on 30.10.2009 and subsequently the matter was taken before the Trade Tax Tribunal which recorded a categorical finding that out of total tax of Rs.68,43,804/- the petitioner has deposited Rs. 40,22,079/- within time and with regard to the balance tax of Rs.28,21,725/- was paid beyond time for which the interest was to be paid. 6. By means of impugned order dated 26.08.2010 the penalty order has been upheld which has been impugned before this Court. A perusal of the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Joint Commissioner(A)-5, Commercial Tax, Lucknow would show that the applicant firm is totally owned and controlled by the Government of India and during the month of April tax of Rs. 40,22,079/- was deposited by the applicant and subsequently an amount of Rs. 28,21,725/- was deposited when the accounts were audited and finalized, this fact has been admitted by the respondents themselves in the said order. The amount of penalty has been imposed only due to the late payment of the tax. 7. A perusal of Section 15 A(1)(a)of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, is reproduced as under:- "Section 15-A. Penalties in certain cases. (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person- (a) has, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the return of his turnover or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner prescribed, or to deposit the tax due under this Act, before furnishing the return or along with the return as required under the provisions of this Act; or The law regarding imposition of penalty is cleared from the various judgments of this Court as well as judgment of the Apex Court, it has to be decided that there was a detention on the part of the assesses to evade tax and only then penalty can be imposed on the assesses. A perusal of the facts as stated in the present writ petition that petitioner had paid the part of the amount of tax and the remaining amount was paid beyond the due date on which the interest has been deposited by the assessee. It has also been submitted that the delayed payment of the tax was on account of the finalization of the accounts of the assessee and therefore there is a reasonable cause which has been stated by them for delayed payment of the tax, the said fact has not been disputed by the State." 8. In light of the aforesaid it is clear that there is no intention of the assessee to evade payment of the tax and therefore, as per provisions of Section 15 A(1)(a) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, the imposition of penalty is illegal and arbitrary. Another aspect of the matter which has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant is that tribunal has not given any reasons or findings for imposition of penalty and has not been considered in view of the submissions made by applicant before the Tribunal. 9. According to Section 15-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, penalty can be imposed only when the assessee has not deposited the amount of tax without any reasonable cause. The revisionist as consistently stated before the authorities concerned that part of the tax amount of Rs.28,21,725/-was admittedly deposited beyond time, because some time was consumed in finalisation and audit of their accounts. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the authorities below. They were required to consider and also it was mandatory to record a finding that the revisionist had deposited the tax beyond time without any reasonable cause, firstly, this aspect of the matter has not been discussed or considered by the Commissioner, Tax Tribunal and secondly, they have not given any reason for up holding the penalty order of the First Appellate Authority and have proceeded on the presumption that in case tax is not deposited within time, or interest is not deposited then automatically penalty under Section 15-A of the Act can be levied. The order of Commissioner, Tax Tribunal is on the face of it contrary to the provisions of statute. The order of Commissioner, Tax Tribunal is on the face of it contrary to the provisions of statute. With regard to giving of reasons it has been consistently held by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court that any order bereft of reasons is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside on this score alone. 10. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. Highlighting this rule, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and ors., (2010) 2 JT 566 SC para 31 to 33 as under : "31. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice - delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. “[Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 2 JT 172 SC and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors., 2004 5 JT 338 SCC : 2004 (5) SCC 573 ]. 32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 4664 ; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 4664 ; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 172 ; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 407 ; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, AIR 2008 SC 2026 ; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, AIR 2009 SC 2328 ; Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 258 ; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 513 ; and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr., (2009) 4 SCC 422 . 33. Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected." 11. Non recording of reasons, non consideration of admissible evidence or consideration of inadmissible evidence renders the order to be unsustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, (2011) 269 ELT 433 (S.C.), held as under : "8. ....It needs to be emphasised that every litigant, who approaches the court for relief is entitled to know the reason for acceptance or rejection of his prayer, particularly when either of the parties to the lis has a right of further appeal. Unless the litigant is made aware of the reasons which weighed with the court in denying him the relief prayed for, the remedy of appeal will not be meaningful. It is that reasoning, which can be subjected to examination at the higher forums. In State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar, 2 this Court, while reiterating that reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless, observed thus : "8.......Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. In State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar, 2 this Court, while reiterating that reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless, observed thus : "8.......Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made;......." 12. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 while dealing with the criminal appeal, insisted that the reasons in support of the decision was a cardinal principle and the High Court should record its reasons while disposing off the matter. The Court held as under: "8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971) 2 QB 175, observed : (QB p.191 C) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice." "Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 13. Following this very view, the Supreme Court in another very recent judgment delivered on 22-2-2008, in State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain, (2008) 15 SCC 711 stated that 'reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.' 14. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 13. Following this very view, the Supreme Court in another very recent judgment delivered on 22-2-2008, in State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain, (2008) 15 SCC 711 stated that 'reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.' 14. Providing of reasons in orders is of essence in judicial proceedings. Every litigant who approaches the Court with a prayer is entitled to know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such request. Either of the parties to the lis has a right of appeal and, therefore, it is essential for them to know the considered opinion of the Court to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. It is the reasoning which ultimately culminates into final decision which may be subject to examination of the appellate or other higher Courts. It is not only desirable but, in view of the consistent position of law, mandatory for the Court to pass orders while recording reasons in support thereof, however, brief they may be. Brevity in reasoning cannot be understood in legal parlance as absence of reasons. While no reasoning in support of judicial orders is impermissible, the brief reasoning would suffice to meet the ends of justice at least at the interlocutory stages and would render the remedy of appeal purposeful and meaningful. It is a settled canon of legal jurisprudence that the Courts are vested with discretionary powers but such powers are to be exercised judiciously, equitably and in consonance with the settled principles of law. Whether or not, such judicial discretion has been exercised in accordance with the accepted norms, can only be reflected by the reasons recorded in the order impugned before the higher Court. Often it is said that absence of reasoning may ipso facto indicate whimsical exercise of judicial discretion. Patricia Wald, Chief Justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Article, "The problem with the Courts: Black-robed Bureaucracy Or Collegiality Under Challenge" 42 Md.L. Rev. 766, 782 (1983), observed as under:- 'My own guiding principle is that virtually every appellate decision requires some statement of reasons. Patricia Wald, Chief Justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Article, "The problem with the Courts: Black-robed Bureaucracy Or Collegiality Under Challenge" 42 Md.L. Rev. 766, 782 (1983), observed as under:- 'My own guiding principle is that virtually every appellate decision requires some statement of reasons. The discipline of writing even a few sentences or paragraphs explaining the basis for the judgment insures a level of thought and scrutiny by the Court that a bare signal of affirmance, dismissal, or reversal does not.' 15. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a losing litigant has a cause to plead and a right to challenge the order if it is adverse to him. Opinion of the Court alone can explain the cause which led to passing of the final order. Whether an argument was rejected validly or otherwise, reasoning of the order alone can show. To evaluate the submissions is obligation of the Court and to know the reasons for rejection of its contention is a legitimate expectation on the part of the litigant. 16. It will be useful to refer words of Justice Roslyn Atkinson, Supreme Court of Queensland, at AIJA Conference at Brisbane on 13-9-2002 in relation to Judgment Writing. Describing that some judgment could be complex, in distinction to routine judgments, where one requires deeper thoughts, and the other could be disposed of easily but in either cases, reasons they must have. While speaking about purpose of the judgment, he said, 'The first matter to consider is the purpose of the judgment. To my mind there are four purposes for any judgment that is written:- (1) to clarify your own thoughts; (2) to explain your decision to the parties; (3) to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public; and (4) to provide reasons for an appeal Court to consider.' 17. Clarity of thought leads to proper reasoning and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, (1974) ICR 120 (NIRC), the Court went to the extent of observing that 'Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice'. Reasons are really linchpin to administration of justice. They are the link between the mind of the decision-taker and the controversy in question. To justify our conclusion, reasons are essential. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, (1974) ICR 120 (NIRC), the Court went to the extent of observing that 'Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice'. Reasons are really linchpin to administration of justice. They are the link between the mind of the decision-taker and the controversy in question. To justify our conclusion, reasons are essential. Absence of reasoning would render the judicial order liable to interference by the higher court. Reasons are the soul of the decision and its absence would render the order open to judicial chastism. The consistent judicial opinion is that every order determining rights of the parties in a Court of law ought not to be recorded without supportive reasons. Issuing reasoned order is not only beneficial to the higher courts but is even of great utility for providing public understanding of law and imposing self- discipline in the Judge as their discretion is controlled by well- established norms. The contention raised before us that absence of reasoning in the impugned order would render the order liable to be set aside, particularly, in face of the fact that the learned Judge found merit in the writ petition and issued rule, therefore, needs to be accepted. We have already noticed that orders even at interlocutory stages may not be as detailed as judgments but should be supported by reason howsoever briefly stated. Absence of reasoning is impermissible in judicial pronouncement. 18. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be. 19. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be. 19. It is the duty cast upon the Appellate Authority that even if it is in agreement with the view taken by the first Appellate Authority, it should give its own reasons/findings which may indicate that there has been application of mind and also the consideration of grounds raised in the appeal by the revisionist. In absence of reasons it is difficult to come to a conclusion that there has been any application of mind by the Tribunal and such an order in the opinion of the Court cannot be sustained and deserves to the set aside. 20. Therefore, in light of the above the order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-1, Lucknow in Appeal No. 37 of 2010 is set-aside and the revision stands allowed. 21. If any, excess amount is deposited with the respondents the same shall be remitted to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before him.