Reasoned stay orders are mandatory in tax recovery disputes; a cryptic refusal without reasons is invalid.

An appellate authority's refusal to grant stay of recovery under section 42(4) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, was held unsustainable because it was passed without reasons. Although the provision did not expressly repeat a duty to record reasons, the exercise of statutory power affecting rights and public revenue still required application of mind, consideration of relevant facts and law, and a fair hearing. A cryptic or cyclostyled order disclosing no reasoning was treated as arbitrary and inconsistent with fairness. The impugned order was set aside, and the stay application was directed to be decided afresh after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appellate authority's order refusing stay of recovery under section 42(4) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, without reasons, was sustainable and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 42(4) did not expressly repeat the words requiring reasons to be recorded, unlike the earlier provision under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. Even so, the absence of an express requirement did not authorise a whimsical or arbitrary order. A refusal of stay affecting rights and public revenue must reflect application of mind, consideration of relevant facts and law, and a fair hearing. A cryptic or cyclostyled order that discloses no reasoning does not satisfy the requirements of fairness and is contrary to the principles governing exercise of statutory power.

Conclusion: The impugned order refusing stay was invalid and liable to be set aside. The writ petition was allowed and the appellate authority was directed to decide the stay application afresh after hearing the petitioner.

---