TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... JUSTICE) Sri J.C. Francis, learned counsel representing Sri Ravish Kedia, learned counsel for the petitioners in both cases; Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in both the cases and Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 1 in both the cases. 2. Regard abeing had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request, these matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. 3. The challenge is mounted in these petitions to the Appellate Orders in appeal Nos.HYD-GST-HYC-APP1-118-24-25 and HYD-GST-HYC-APP1-117-24-25, both dated 30.08.2024 passed by respondent N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scharged stands appropriated', 'Demand for penalty without showing the ingredients is illegal'. 5. Under every 'head', the petitioners raised facts and grounds on the strength of which said 'heads' were highlighted. By taking this court to the 'findings and discussion', learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the findings are nothing, but ipse-dixit of the learned Appellate Authority. Learned Appellate Authority is under a statutory obligation and need to assign reasons for each of his conclusions. He passed a cryptic order without dealing with each of the discussions which were duly highlighted in the appeal memos. The orders are cryptic and non-speaking in nature. 6. Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11. The adjudicating authority has examined the role and culpability of each person based on the material evidence on record. The impugned orders have elaborately dealt with the submissions of the noticee. I find that the allegations are based on cogent evidence gathered during investigations and not on mere presumptions. The impugned order has been passed taking into consideration all the relevant facts and is a well-reasoned one. The findings are neither going beyond the SCNs nor suffering from any infirmities. 12. In view of the above, I hold that M/s Om Dhana Laxmi Traders have availed and passed on ITC irregularly without the underlying supplies. Thus, they are liable for penal actions under relevant provisions. In view of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of this Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262]. 13... 14. The expression "speaking order" was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of the writ of certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. 15. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the "inscrutable face of a sphinx". 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has not dealt with each of the points raised by the petitioners in the appeal memos. He passed an order stating that the petitioners have failed to provide any credible evidence to rebut the specific findings. He did not deal with the defence of the petitioners on the aspect of right to cross-examine the witness. Thereafter, at paragraph No. 11, the learned Appellate Authority opined that in view of the findings of the adjudicating authority and material on record, since the impugned order has elaborately dealt with the submissions of the noticee, interference was declined. We wonder, when the Order-in-Original was challenged under various 'grounds', how reliance can be placed on the Order-in-Original to reject the contentions of the petiti....