JUDGMENT : ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The revisionist by means of this revision has challenged the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 12.09.2014 whereby penalty order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax dated 21.06.2013 has been up held. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a dealer duly registered under the Provisions of UPVAT Act, 2008 and has been allotted TIN : 0935180075 and is engaged in the trading of iron and steel. M/s U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the U.P.R.N.N."), Gorakhpur placed a purchase order for supply of 9 MTs TMT Steel (Iron rods) upon the revisionist. In order to satisfy the purchase order received from U.P.R.N.N., placed order with M/s Awasthi Iron and Steel Company, Badali Khera, Kanpur Road, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "M/s Awasthi"). M/s Awasthi directed the revisionist to get the goods loaded from the factory of M/s United Steel from where the M/s Awasthi has placed the order. M/s Awasthi used its own Tax Invoice in respect of the goods issued at Book No. 81 Serial No. 4040 dated 19.03.2014, wherein vehicle number is clearly mentioned on which the goods were loaded and which is the same truck which was found carrying the goods. Revisionist submits that there is no illegality in the fact that M/s Awasthi required the revisionist to get the goods loaded directly from the factory of the dealer from this it had purchased the goods and issuing an invoice from its own books of account. 4. Revisionist has further submitted that goods were duly accompanied with Tax Invoice No. 98 Book No. 2, dated 19.03.2013. The Tax Invoice indicates the correct description of goods as well as the vehicle number through which the goods were dispatched. The transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts of the revisionist. On 20.03.2013 the Mobile Squad of the Commercial Tax Department intercepted the goods and issued a show cause notice for seizure of the goods. Allegation in the show cause notice was that the tax invoice accompanying the goods did not mention the number of bundels or weight of the goods found in the vehicle. The revisionist replied to the said penalty notice and annexed the tax invoice. 5. Allegation in the show cause notice was that the tax invoice accompanying the goods did not mention the number of bundels or weight of the goods found in the vehicle. The revisionist replied to the said penalty notice and annexed the tax invoice. 5. It is admitted that weight of the goods was not mentioned in the tax invoice issued by the revisionist. The reply of the revisionist was rejected and the revisionist who was in urgent need of the goods, deposited the security of Rs.1,12,000/- and got the goods released and subsequently by means of order dated 21.06.2013, penalty order was passed. 6. The revisionist preferred an appeal against the order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Grade-II) Appeals, Range-2, Lucknow on 10.01.2013, which was rejected and thereafter he preferred Second Appeal under Section 57 of the UPVAT Act, 2008, before the Commercial Tax Tribunal being Second Appeal No. 109 of 2014, the said appeal has been rejected by order dated 12.09.2014, which has been under challenge before this Court in the instant revision. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the Tribunal has not considered any of the grounds raised by the revisionist in the appeal and it has merely reproduced the order of the first Appellate Authority and without any application of mind has stated that they totally agree with the reasons stated by the first Appellate Authority and dismissed the appeal of the revisionist. Revisionist also submits that the said order is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as there is no application of mind and even if the Tribunal was in agreement with the first Appellate Authority it should have given reasons themselves and considered the grounds raised by the revisionist before passing the impugned order. 8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that once it is admitted that the revisionist was carrying goods without mentioning the weight it is evident that the said transaction was being done with clear intention of evasion of tax and therefore the order imposing penalty was passed by the authorities below which has been finally up held by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.09.2014, which is correct and deserves to be sustained. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of the impugned order dated 12.09.2014, passed by the Tribunal while deciding appeal of the revisionist has not considered any of the grounds raised by him in the appeal. Perusal of the said order would indicate that the Tribunal has only reiterated the findings of the first Appellate Authority and concluded in paragraph 8 by saying that it agrees with the said findings of the first Appellate Authority and thereby it has rejected the appeal. 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 SCC 573 : JT 2004 (5) SCC 338. 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. Sohan Lal & Ors., (2004) 5 SCC 573 : JT 2004 (5) SCC 338. 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." 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. 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;......." 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 of 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. 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. 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. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 12.09.2014 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commercial Tax Tribunal to decide the appeal of the revisionist in accordance with law, afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing by means of reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, say within a period of six months' from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 21. The revision is accordingly allowed. 22. No order as to costs.