Speaking order required for stay applications; non-reasoned disposal was quashed and matter remitted for fresh decision.

A stay application disposed of by a non-speaking order was unsustainable because the tribunal gave no reasons and did not show application of mind. An order on stay must disclose the basis for the decision and be a speaking order. The HC quashed the impugned order, revived the stay application, and remitted the matter to the tribunal to hear the parties and decide afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal's order disposing of the stay application without reasons was sustainable and whether the matter required remand for a speaking order.

Analysis: The impugned order merely recorded that the appeals were entertained subject to payment of the entire amount by a specified date and did not disclose any reasoning. An order dealing with a stay application must reflect application of mind and give reasons. A non-speaking order of this nature was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, the stay application was revived, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to hear the parties and pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

---