Reasoned appellate orders are mandatory; a non-speaking order was unsustainable and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

A cryptic appellate order that merely agrees with the lower authority without independent reasons cannot be sustained because an appellate or quasi-judicial forum must consider the issues raised, assess the factual matrix, and record its own speaking reasons. An order that discloses no independent application of mind and gives no reasoning offends natural justice and the requirement of reasoned decisions. The Tribunal's orders were therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the parties and passing a reasoned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether a cryptic appellate order, which merely states agreement with the lower authority without independent reasons, can be sustained and what relief should follow.

Analysis: The appellate authority is required to consider the issues urged before it, appreciate the factual matrix, and record its own reasons for the conclusion reached. An order lacking reasons does not disclose application of mind and offends the requirement that judicial and quasi-judicial decisions must be speaking orders supported by reasons, which is an essential facet of natural justice. Since the Tribunal dismissed the appeals only by expressing agreement with the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) without independent findings, the order could not stand.

Conclusion: The impugned Tribunal orders were unsustainable and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after hearing the parties and passing a reasoned and speaking order.

---