Unreasoned penalty waiver refusal is subject to writ review and cannot stand without application of mind.

A cryptic refusal of waiver of penalty under section 13(2A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, without showing consideration of the materials placed, is arbitrary and cannot stand. An order passed under that provision is not immune from scrutiny under article 226, because writ review extends to executive, administrative and quasi-judicial orders. The authority must disclose application of mind and adequate reasons, especially where discretionary power affects civil consequences and natural justice applies. The High Court quashed the unreasoned rejection and directed reconsideration of the assessee's application in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Government's order rejecting the assessee's application for waiver of penalty under section 13(2A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was liable to be quashed for want of genuine application of mind and reasons, and whether such an order was amenable to judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The order refusing waiver was a cryptic endorsement that did not disclose any consideration of the materials placed in the application. An order passed under section 13(2A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is not immune from scrutiny under article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the wide scope of writ review extends to executive, administrative, and quasi-judicial orders. The requirement that an order should reveal application of mind and sufficiently clear reasons is part of fair administrative decision-making and the principles of natural justice. A bare and unreasoned refusal, particularly where the authority is conferred discretion affecting civil consequences, is arbitrary and cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The Government's order rejecting waiver of penalty was arbitrary and unsustainable, and it was quashed with a direction to reconsider the assessee's application in accordance with law.

---