JUDGMENT : Om Prakash Shukla, J. (1) Since common factual matrix arises in the above-captioned revisions and the parties are also the same, therefore, with the Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. -38 of 2023 and other connected revisions consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the above captioned revisions were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. (2) For the sake of convenience, the revisionist shall hereinafter be referred to as the assessee and the respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as the revenue. (3) Sales/Trade Tax Revision Nos. 43, 44, 48, 52, 54 and 57 of 2023 are filed at the instance of the assessee, challenging the correctness of the common judgment and order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby Second Appeal Nos. 110, 109, 120, 108, 112, 116 of 2014 preferred by the assessee for the year 2004-05, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, respectively, in respect of demand of Sales Tax and Value Added Tax have been dismissed. (4) Sales/Trade Tax Revisions No. 47, 51 of 2023 are directed against the common order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby Second Appeal Nos. 117, 121 of 2014 for the year 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 preferred by the assessee against the penalty order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Adjudicating Officer, has been dismissed. (5) Sales/Trade Tax Revisions No. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 58 and 59 of 2023 are directed against the common order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby applications for recalling/rectification of the order dated 08.12.2016, bearing Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 of 2019, have been rejected. (6) In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the assessee/revisionist is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing/trading of Chemical Fertilizers and Pesticides, execution of Railway Electrification Projects, Supply of Electrical Goods and execution of High Voltage Transmission Line projects for Government and Public Sector Agencies such as Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (Power Grid), State Electricity Board, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Central Organization for Railway Electrification. (7) In response to the tenders floated by the Power Grid Corporation India Ltd. (in short, ‘PGCIL’) and others, the assessee/revisionist had entered into two separate identifiable contracts and the same was communicated to the assessee by the PGCIL vide letter dated 14.11.2003, according to which, the assessee has been assigned contracts viz. (i) for supply of equipment and material for tower package for 400k V D/C Vishnuprayag-Muzaffarnagar Transmission Line having specification No. C-12904-L165-3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘goods’); and (ii) for transportation, insurance, delivery, survey, foundation, erection, stringing, testing and commissioning of the same transmission line. (8) It is the case of the assessee that insofar as the first contract, PGCIL through various branches offices was to inspect and certify the goods for fitness at the place of vendors from whom the goods are procured by the assesee and on such certification in Material Inspection and Clearance Certificate, 75% of payment against supply of such goods is released. Undisputedly, the vendors, from whom the goods were procured in pursuance of the aforesaid contracts, were situated outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, hence the goods were dispatched from the place of venders from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh to the site within Uttar Pradesh. After commencement of transportation, the assessee transferred the title of the goods during transit to the Contractee by making endorsement on the bilites. Thereafter, the Contractee received the goods at site and subsequently, the assessee, acting as bailee of goods of the Contractee, carried out other activities, such as uploading, storage etc. and used the goods in execution of the second contract. (9) Further case of the assessee is that on observing abundant caution and to fulfil the legal requirement, assessee received documents i.e. Form-C from the Contractee and FormE1 from the vendors to further establish that such sale was a subsequent sale, which is not subjected to Taxation. According to the assesee, in case of the inter-State sales, the sale may be subjected to tax only in the State from which movement of goods takes place. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘Assessing Officer’), had issued a show cause notice dated 22.07.2010 to the assessee, proposing to withdraw the Transit Sale Exemption availed/claim of inter-State by him under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with a direction to him to file its objection. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘Assessing Officer’), had issued a show cause notice dated 22.07.2010 to the assessee, proposing to withdraw the Transit Sale Exemption availed/claim of inter-State by him under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with a direction to him to file its objection. In response, the assessee had filed detailed objections. However, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 31.01.2011, denied the claim of inter-state sale exemption and confirmed the demand on such inter-state sale. The said assessment order dated 31.01.2011 was challenged by the assessee before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow by filing appeals. The Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, vide order dated 23.11.2013, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the demand. (10) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 23.11.2013, the assessee has preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, vide an order dated 08.12.2016, dismissed the second appeal due to non-presence of the assesse or his counsel. Since the Counsel who was engaged in the matter on behalf of assessee could not appear on 08.12.2016, the assessee preferred an application for recall of the order dated 08.12.2016, which was rejected by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 22.10.2019, stating that the absence of the assessee on the day of the hearing despite being duly served with a notice as well as non-submission of prayer requesting a postponement of hearing implies the assessee’s non-cooperation in the speedy disposal of the appeal and its intent to delay the proceedings by any means. Subsequently, the assessee filed another application for rectification of mistake in the order dated 22.10.2019 and recalling of the order dated 08.12.2016 before the learned Tribunal, which too was rejected vide order dated 04.11.2022. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the above-captioned revisions before this Court. (11) Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 58 and 59 of 2023 were admitted on 11.01.2024 on the following questions of law :- “a. Whether the Impugned Order is perverse as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because the same is non-reasoned as the application for recall of the order was considered as application for rectification of mistake only? b. Whether the Impugned Order is perverse which failed to consider the explanation of the Revisionist as sufficient cause for non-Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. -38 of 2023 and other connected revisions appearance on the date (07.12.2016) on which hearing was fixed? c. Whether the date of which certified copy of the Order dated 08.12.2016 is obtained, is to be considered as the date from which limitation period commences under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 or Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, where the requirement is on the Tribunal to serve a certified copy of the order passed by it? d. Whether the finding recorded by the Learned Tribunal that there was delay in filing of recall Application was perverse as no contrary fact was on record, and in such circumstances, the affidavit of the Revisionist is enough to establish that the copy of order was not served upon the Revisionist?” (12) Sales/Trade Tax Revision Nos. 43, 44, 48, 52, 54 and 57 of the 2023 were admitted on 11.01.2024 on the following question of law :- “a. Whether the impugned order is perverse as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because an opportunity of hearing was not afforded and also because the same is non-reasoned and non-speaking as held by this Hon'ble High court in the matter of 'Mamta Steel India Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of C.Ex., Allahabad', reported in 2019 (368) E.L.T. 529) All.)? b. Whether the impugned order is perverse as the same has been passed ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court that the sale of the goods, of which movement occasioned from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh due to a contract for use of the same in the execution of works contract in the State of Uttar Pradesh, amounts to an inter-state sale and the same is not subjected to tax in the State of Uttar Pradesh? c. Whether the sale of goods referred in contract is subject to exemption under Section 6 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? d. Whether even if the contract in question is considered as indivisible work contract then also the sale of goods, of which movement occasioned from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh is inter-state sale or not? c. Whether the sale of goods referred in contract is subject to exemption under Section 6 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? d. Whether even if the contract in question is considered as indivisible work contract then also the sale of goods, of which movement occasioned from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh is inter-state sale or not? e. Whether the contracts in question are legally bound to be considered as two separate contracts as per the Constitutional Amendment in the definition of 'sale' under Article 366(29A) (b) of the Constitution of India?” (13) Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 47 and 51 of 2023 were admitted on 11.01.2024 on the following question of law :- “a. Whether the impugned order is perverse as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because an opportunity of hearing was not afforded and also because the same is non-reasoned and non-speaking as held by this Hon'ble High court in the matter of 'Mamta Steel India Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of C.Ex., Allahabad', reported in 2019 (368) E.L.T. 529)All.)? b. Whether the impugned order is perverse as the same has been passed ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court that for imposing penalty, a satisfaction has to be recorded to justify intention to evade tax and the same is not subjected to tax in the State of Uttar Pradesh? c. Whether mere blank column 6 in Form 38 lead to imposition of penalty were other documents accompanying the Form 38 proves that there was no intention to evade tax?” (14) Heard Shri Ritwick Rai and Shri Aviral Raj Singh, learned Counsel representing the assessee/revisionists and Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Counsel representing the respondent/revenue. (15) Learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that it was the duty of the Tribunal to duly consider the issues raised by the assessee and deal with all the aspects before deciding the appeals. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has decided the appeals in the most cursory and casual manner and without giving any reasons for not accepting the cause shown by the assessee of his absence on the date fixed. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has decided the appeals in the most cursory and casual manner and without giving any reasons for not accepting the cause shown by the assessee of his absence on the date fixed. According to the learned Counsel, specific plea has been raised by the asessee before the learned Tribunal that the Counsel who appeared on his behalf, though noted the date fixed in the appeal, however, he became subsequently ill and neither the date fixed nor his illness was communicated to him, on account of which, no one has put in appearance on the behalf of the assesse before the Tribunal. Thus, it has been submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from vice of non-application of mind, which is writ large on the impugned order, and therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed on this score alone. (16) Inviting attention to Clause (5) of Rule 63 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2008’), learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that Clause (5) of Rule 63 clearly stipulates that the judgment in the appeal shall be in writing and shall state three points viz. (a) the points of determination; (b) the decision thereon; and (c) the reasons for such decision. However, while passing the impugned order dated 08.12.2016, none of the points stipulated in Clause (5) of Rule 63 of the Rules, 2008 has been followed and in a cursory manner, the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 has been passed. He, therefore, prays that the matter be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration in the matter on merits. (17) Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned counsel for the revenue, on being faced with the impugned order has fairly stated that the same is bereft of any reasoning and did not oppose the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant for remand of the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law. (17) Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned counsel for the revenue, on being faced with the impugned order has fairly stated that the same is bereft of any reasoning and did not oppose the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant for remand of the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law. (18) Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record available before this court in the above-captioned revisions, it is first required to be noted that Rule 63 of the Rules, 2008 deals with the disposal of appeal, wherein Clause (5) of Rule 63 of the Rules, 2008 provides as under :- “(5) The judgment in appeal shall be in writing and shall state (a) the points for determination, (b) the decision thereon, and (c) the reasons for such decision.” (19) The aforesaid clause (5) of Rule 63 of the Rules, 2008 clearly provided that the judgment in appeal shall be in writing and Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. -38 of 2023 and other connected revisions shall state the points of determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. (20) A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 clearly shows that the Tribunal has not determined the issue raised in the appeal preferred by the assessee but relying on grounds of rejection of the appeal of the assessee by the first appellate authority, dismissed the appeal . The Tribunal has concluded by holding that no convincing defence was put forth by the assessee and therefore proceeded to confirm the order passed by the first appellate authority. (21) It is trite law that an order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is engrained in 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., JT 2010(2)SC 566 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. 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 (JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC 338: 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. 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. (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." (22) 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)E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), has 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, 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;....…" (23) In view of the aforesaid legal propositions, it is a cardinal principle of law that 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 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 scrutiny. They are the link between the mind of the decision-taker and the controversy in question. To justify 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 scrutiny. 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. Absence of reasoning is impermissible in judicial pronouncement. (24) The contention raised before this court that there is an absence of reasoning in the impugned order dated 08.12.2016, in itself would render the order liable to be set aside. (25) 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 be set aside. (26) In view of the discussions made above, the question posed for consideration in the revisions is answered in favour of the assessee and it is held that the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in not complying the provisions of Clause 5 of Section 63 of the Rules, 2008. In view of the direction issued, alternative issues between the revisionist and revenue are not required to be examined any further. (27) Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 is hereby set-aside. As a consequence thereof, the consequential impugned orders dated 04.11.2022 passed on the recall application and rectification application are also set-aside. In view of the direction issued, alternative issues between the revisionist and revenue are not required to be examined any further. (27) Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 is hereby set-aside. As a consequence thereof, the consequential impugned orders dated 04.11.2022 passed on the recall application and rectification application are also set-aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for redetermination, in terms of the discussion made above, after affording opportunity to the parties, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. (28) It is clarified that the parties shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the learned Tribunal. (29) The above-captioned revisions stands allowed in the aforesaid term.