JUDGMENT : ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri P.Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The revisionist had established a new unit for the manufacture of PVC container and the Eligibility Certificate was granted in the year 1992 and subsequently, the revisionist has expanded the unit and diversified to manufacture PET Bottles, and Mineral water and Insulated wares. He applied for an application for exemption under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The applicant preferred an application on 25.06.1999, for grant of Eligibility Certificate in view of the circular dated 14.12.1998, which provided for single window system and the matter regarding the exemption shall be decided within a period of 60 days, failing which it shall be deemed that the Eligibility Certificate has been granted. The competent authority rejected the application for grant of Eligibility Certificate by means of order dated 30.04.2000, on the ground that;- (A) Bill supplied by the applicant for fabrication of moulds were not genuine and as such they can not be relied upon. (B) The applicant was already engaged in the manufacturing of mineral water under the name of M/S Multi Minerals. 3. Against the aforesaid order, revisionist preferred an appeal before the Tribunal being Appeal No.55 of 2000. The appeal was heard by the Full Bench of the Trade Tax Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Divisional Level Committee for adjudication on the basis of the evidence supplied by the revisionist. The Divisional Level Committee sought a report from the Trade Tax Department and subsequently, by means of order dated 04.09.2001, rejected the application of the revisionist. Against the aforesaid order, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Full Bench of the Trade Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on 14.05.2002, on the ground that the applicant did not submit the evidence before the Divisional Level Committee and the revisionist has nothing to do with the business of M/S Multi Minerals. 4. The order of the Tribunal has been assailed in the present revision, on the ground that a perusal of the revision would indicate that they have neither applied their mind nor considered any of the ground raised by the revisionist and they have merely upheld the order of the first appellate authority. 5. 4. The order of the Tribunal has been assailed in the present revision, on the ground that a perusal of the revision would indicate that they have neither applied their mind nor considered any of the ground raised by the revisionist and they have merely upheld the order of the first appellate authority. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. A perusal of the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, it is clear that they have merely reiterated the order of the first appellate authority and in the conclusion that they have not given any finding on any questions either of fact or law raised by the revisionist and concluded that the revisionist has not discharged his duty and submitted the relevant documents and therefore, the appeal has been rejected. 7. In the case of Uma Charan Singh v State of U.P. Thru Secy. & ors., (2017) 4 ADJ 498 , the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court said : "8. 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. 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 SCand State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors., (2004) 5 JT 388 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., (2003) AIR 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, (2008) AIR SC 2026 ; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, (2009) AIR 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." 8. 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.)(para 8) 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. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, (2011) 269 ELT 433 (S.C.)(para 8) 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 Luhar2 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;......." 9. Following this very view, the Supreme Court by its judgment delivered on 22-2-2008, in State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain, (2008) 15 SCC 711 has stated that 'reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.' 10. 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. 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" 1983 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.' 11. I am satisfied that the said order has been passed without any application of mind and without considering the grounds raised by the revisionist in the appeal. The Tribunal being a quasi judicial body, it was incumbent upon them to consider all the grounds raised by the revisionist in its appeal and give the finding on each of the issues raised by them. It seems that the Tribunal has not given its finding or even mentioned the grounds raised by the revisionist in the appeal. 12. In light of the above, the revision is allowed. The order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal in Appeal No.141 of 2001 is quashed. It seems that the Tribunal has not given its finding or even mentioned the grounds raised by the revisionist in the appeal. 12. In light of the above, the revision is allowed. The order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal in Appeal No.141 of 2001 is quashed. The matter is further remanded to the Tribunal to reconsider the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the revisionist and further directed to pass reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, say within a period of six months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before him. 13. The revision is allowed. 14. No order as to costs.