Reasoned orders are mandatory in refund disputes; a cryptic rejection of excess registration fee was quashed for fresh consideration.

An order rejecting a refund claim for excess registration fee without reasons was unsustainable because a decision affecting civil consequences must disclose the basis of the authority's conclusion. The cryptic rejection showed a failure to apply mind and could not stand in law. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's application for refund of excess registration fee, passed without reasons, was sustainable and whether the matter required fresh consideration.

Analysis: The refund application had been rejected in a cryptic manner without assignment of reasons. An order which does not disclose the basis of decision-making cannot be sustained in law, particularly where the authority is called upon to decide a refund claim affecting civil consequences. The defect in the impugned order warranted interference and reconsideration by the competent authority.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the authority was directed to decide the refund application afresh in accordance with law.

---