Wp/35796/2024 Of Dongfang Electric Corporation Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI WRIT PETITION Nos. 35796. 36006 AND 36007 0F 2024 WRIT PETITION NO: 35796 OF 2024 Between: Dongfang Electric Corporation Ltd., 18, Xixin Avenue, High Tech West ParkChengdu, Sichuan, China Pan No. Rep. by AuthorisedSignatory Mr. Rajesh Vaishnav aged about 30 [years ]S/o. SatyanarayanVaishnav, No 4-3-428, Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad. ..PETITIONER AND 1Commissioner of lncome Tax, lnternational Taxation and Transfer [Pricing ][Sth]floor, Aayakar Bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad [- ]500004floor, Aayakar Bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad [- ]500004 2Commissioner of lncome Tax Appeal CIT [(A), ]Hyderabad-10 6th [floor,]Aayakar Bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004Aayakar Bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004 3- Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, [lVinistry ]ofFinance, North Block New Delhi - 1 10001Finance, North Block New Delhi - 1 10001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the impugned Rejection dated 05-12-2024 tor A.Y.20'13-14passed by 1't respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, inconsistent, violative ofprinciples of natural justice, without jurisdiction, without authority of law andviolative of Articles 14, 19 (1) g and 265 of Constitution of lndia and contrary toprovisions of DTVSV Scheme, 2O24 and consequently set aside the impugnedRejection daled 05-12-2024 passed by 1't respondent in [petitioner's ]application [in]Form-l dated 20-11-2024 bearing Acknowledgement No.718693360201124 [fot] A.Y.2013-14 filed under DTVSV Scheme, 2024 and direct the 1st respondent toaccept the Form-1 of the Petitioner and issue Form-2 fol|00 [percentage ]taxpayment and waiver of interest and penalty and permit to file Form-3 and issueForm-4 for final settlement under DTVSV Scheme, 2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings including the Appeal pending before the 2nd respondentand revision under section 263 pending before the 1st respondent, for A.y.2013-14, till further orders of this Hon'ble Court. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the impugned rejection dated 05-'12-2024 and direct the 1st respondentto treat the application filed under Form-1 dated 2O-11-2024 bearingAcknowledgement No.718693360201 124 under DTVSV Scheme, 2024 aspending, till disposal of this wdt petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM, APPEAR FORSRI MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SRMJHAY K PUNNA(sENtoR sc FOR lTD) Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO: 36006 OF 2024 Between: Dongfang Electric Corporation Ltd., 18, Xixin Avenue, High Tech West parkChengdu, .Sich-uan, China Pan No. R6p. by AuthorisedChengdu, .Sich-uan, China Pan No. R6p. by AuthorisedSignatory l4r .&jg:|, Vaishnav aged about 30 years S/o. SatyanarayanVaishnav. No 4-3-428, Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad-Vaishnav. No 4-3-428, Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad- ,..PETITIONER AND 't . Commissioner of lncome Tax, lntemational Taxation and Transfer Pricing 5thfloor, AayakarBhavan Basheerbagh, [Hyderabad - 500004]floor, AayakarBhavan Basheerbagh, [Hyderabad - 500004] Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SRMJHAY K PUNNA(sENtoR sc FOR lTD) Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO: 36006 OF 2024 Between: Dongfang Electric Corporation Ltd., 18, Xixin Avenue, High Tech West parkChengdu, .Sich-uan, China Pan No. R6p. by AuthorisedChengdu, .Sich-uan, China Pan No. R6p. by AuthorisedSignatory l4r .&jg:|, Vaishnav aged about 30 years S/o. SatyanarayanVaishnav. No 4-3-428, Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad-Vaishnav. No 4-3-428, Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad- ,..PETITIONER AND 't . Commissioner of lncome Tax, lntemational Taxation and Transfer Pricing 5thfloor, AayakarBhavan Basheerbagh, [Hyderabad - 500004]floor, AayakarBhavan Basheerbagh, [Hyderabad - 500004] 2. Commissioner of lncome Tax Appeal CIT [(A), ][Hyderabad-10 ][Oth ][floor,]Aayakar Bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad [- 500004]Aayakar Bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad [- 500004] 3. Union of lndia, Rep. by its [Secretary, Department ][of ][Revenue, Ministry ][of]Finance, North Block New Delhi [- ][1 ][10001]Finance, North Block New Delhi [- ][1 ][10001] ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution [of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High Court may ][be]pleased to issue writ order or Direction more [particularly ][in ][the ][nature of ][writ ][of]Mandamus declaring the impugned [Rejection dated 05-12-2024'for ][A.Y.2014-15]passed by 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, [inconsistent' violative ][of]principles of natural justice, without [jurisdiction, ]without [authority ][of ][law ][and]violative of Articles 14, 19 [(1) ][g ]and [265 ][of ][Constitution ][of ][lndia and contrary ][to]provisions of DTVSV Scheme, 2024 and consequently [set ][aside ][the ][impugned]Rejection dated 05-12-2024 [passed ]by [1sr respondent in petitioner's application ][in]Form-1 dated 2O-11-2024 bearing Acknowledgement [No.718826700201124 lor]A.Y.2O14-15 filed under DTVSV Scheme, [2024 ][and ][direct ][the ][1sr ][respondent ][to]accept the Form-1 of the Petitioner [and ][issue Form ][2 ][for ][100 ][percentage ][tax]payment and waiver of interest and [penalty ]and [permit ][to file ][Form-3 ][and ][issue]Form-4 for final settlement under DTVSV [Scheme, ][2024.] lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that [in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]suspend the impugned rejection dated [05-12-2024 and direct ][the ][1sr ][respondent]to treat the application filed under [Form-1 ][dated. ][2O-11-2024 ][bearing]Acknowledgement No.718826700201124 [under ][DTVSV Scheme, ][2O24 ][as]pending, till disposal of this writ [petition.] lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC [praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to ][stay]all further [proceedings ]including the [Appeal pending before ][the 2nd ][respondent] and revision under section [263 pending ][before ][the ][1st ][respondent ], ['for ][A.Y.2O14']15, till further orders of this Hon'ble [Court.] Counsel for the Petitioner: [C.V. NARASIMHAM, APPEAR ] SRI MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent [Nos.1 ][and ][2: ] (sENroR sc FoR ITD) Counsel for the Respondent [No.3: ] [GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,]DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO: 36007 OF [2024] Between:Dongfang Electric Corporation Ltd., [18, ][Xixjn-Aven-ue, ][High Tech ][V.Ve.?t ][P.arkr]Cheigdul Sichuan, China, [Pan No. ][ , ][Rep. ][by ][Authorised]Sionalorv, Mr. Raiesh [Vaishnav, ][Aged ][about ][30 ][years, ][S/o. ][Satyanarayan]Va=ishnav, FJo 4-3-428, Hanuman [Tekdi, ][Hyderabad.] ...PETITIONER and revision under section [263 pending ][before ][the ][1st ][respondent ], ['for ][A.Y.2O14']15, till further orders of this Hon'ble [Court.] Counsel for the Petitioner: [C.V. NARASIMHAM, APPEAR ] SRI MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent [Nos.1 ][and ][2: ] (sENroR sc FoR ITD) Counsel for the Respondent [No.3: ] [GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,]DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO: 36007 OF [2024] Between:Dongfang Electric Corporation Ltd., [18, ][Xixjn-Aven-ue, ][High Tech ][V.Ve.?t ][P.arkr]Cheigdul Sichuan, China, [Pan No. ][ , ][Rep. ][by ][Authorised]Sionalorv, Mr. Raiesh [Vaishnav, ][Aged ][about ][30 ][years, ][S/o. ][Satyanarayan]Va=ishnav, FJo 4-3-428, Hanuman [Tekdi, ][Hyderabad.] ...PETITIONER AND1. Commissioner of lncome Tax, [lnternational Taxation ][and ][Transfer ][Pricing ][sth]Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, [Hyderabad - ][500004']1. Commissioner of lncome Tax, [lnternational Taxation ][and ][Transfer ][Pricing ][sth]Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, [Hyderabad - ][500004']2. Commissioner of lncome [Tax ][Appeal ] [(A), ][Hyderabad-'10 ][6th ][floor,]Aayakar Bhavan Basheerbagh, [Hyderabad ][- ][500004.]Aayakar Bhavan Basheerbagh, [Hyderabad ][- ][500004.] 3. Union of lndia, Rep. by [its ]Secretary, [Department ][of Revenue, ][Ministry ][of]Finance, North Block, New Delhi [- ][1 ][10001 ][.]Finance, North Block, New Delhi [- ][1 ][10001 ][.] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the [Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated in the [affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High Court may ][be]pleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more [particularly ]in the [nature of ][Writ ][of]Mandamus declaring the [impugned Rejection dated ][0511212024 ][lor ] [-2015-16]passed by 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, inconsistent, [violative ][of]principles of natural iustice, without [jurisdiction. ]without authority of law andviolative of Articles 14, 19 [(1) ][g ]and [265 ][of ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][and contrary ][to]provisions of DTVSV Scheme, 2024 and consequently set aside the [impugned]Rejection daled o't1212024 [passed ]by [1 ]st [respondent ]in [petitioners ][application ][in]Form-1 dated 2o11112024 bearing Acknowledgement No.71875982O201124 [lor]A.Y.2015-16 filed under DTVSV Scheme, 2024 and direct the 1st [respondent ]toaccept the Form-l of the Petitioner and issue Form-2 for 100 [percent ]tax [payment] and waiver of interest and [penalty ]and [permit ][to ][file ][Form-3 ][and issue ][Form-4 ][for]final settlement under DTVSV Scheme. 2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section l5'l CPC [praying ]that [in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]suspend the impugned rejection dated [and ][direct ][the ][1st ][respondent ][to]treat the application filed under Form-'t [dated ][2011112014 ][bearing]Acknowledgement No.718759820201124 [under DTVSV Scheme 2024 pending, ][till]disposal of this writ [petition.] lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that in the [circumstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to ][stay]all further proceedings including the Appeal [pending before ][the 2nd ][respondent]and revision under section 263 [pending ][before ][the ][1st respondent' for ][A.Y.201 ][5-]16, till further orders of this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM, SRI MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SRI (sENloR sc FoR lrD)Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI [PRAVEEN KUMAR,]DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERALThe Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI WRIT PETITION Nos.35796 36006 AND 36007 0F 2024 COMMON ORDER; [(per ]Hon'ble Si Justice Sujog [Paul)] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM, SRI MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SRI (sENloR sc FoR lrD)Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI [PRAVEEN KUMAR,]DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERALThe Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI WRIT PETITION Nos.35796 36006 AND 36007 0F 2024 COMMON ORDER; [(per ]Hon'ble Si Justice Sujog [Paul)] Sri C.V.Narasimham, learned Senior Counsel appears forSri Mohd Mukhairuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner andSri Vijhay K Punna, learned Senior Stalding [Counsel ]for IncomeTax Department appears for respondent Nos-1 and 2.2. With the consent hnally heard.3. Regard being had to the similitude of the [questions ]involved,ttrese matters were analogously heard and decided by thiscommon order. 4. The facts are taken from WP.No.35796 ol 2024. Thepetitioner was subjected to assessment for the Assessment Year2OI3-2O14 and assessment order [(Annexure ]P.4) was [passed ]on78.05.2022 determining the attributable income in India to thetune of 10%. The petitioner received a notice dated 16.06.2O23under Sectioo 263 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 [proposing ]revisionof percentage to the tune of 25'k. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that against thesaid notice, WP.No.33230 of 2023 and batch were filed, whichwere subsequently withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy under the Direct Tax Viuad [Se ]Vishrrcs [Scheme, ][2o24 ][( ][Scheme]of 2024). Learned counsel further [submits ][that ][the ][petitioner]preferred an application online in [prescribed ][form ][under ][Section]91 of the said scheme. The [petitioner ][has paid ][the ][requisite]amount before filing the application under [Section ][9 ][1 ][of ][the]scheme, which can be [gathered ][from ][part-E ][of the ][application](Annexure P.3). By taking this Court to [part-F ][of said application,]which as per contention of [petitioner is an auto ][generated ][amount]determined by the Department, [an ][amount ][of ][Rs.-2,07,58,934 ]/ [-]was refundable. The [petitioner ][was ][shocked ][to ][receive ][the]rejection order captioned as ["rejection ]remarks". [Learned counsel]for the petitioner submits that ["rejection ][remarks" ][are ][not properly]worded. It gives an impression as if [the ][Scheme ][of ][2024 ][does ][not]override the Scheme DTVSV [of ][2O2O ][(Scheme ][of ][2O2O), ][whereas, ][a]plain reading of Section 90 of Schem e of 2024 [makes ][it ][clear ][that]it is pregnant with a non-obstante clause, [which ][has ][an overriding]effect not only on income tax, but, [also ][on ][any other law ][which]was in force. Thus, it has [over ]riding [effect even ][on ][the ][Scheme ][of]2020. Section [gaQl ]was [heavily relied ][upon to submit ][that ][tax ][is]very much refundable, if conditions are satisfied. [Thus, ][the]impugned order is bad in law. 6- It is submitted [that the ][impugned ][order ][is ][sought ][to ][be]supported by [assigning ][different ][and ][supplementary reasons ][in]the counter, which [cannot ][be taken ][into ][account ][in ][view ][of ][the]Constitution Bench [Judgment ][of ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][Mohindhr]Siagh GiIl and [Another v. ][Chief ][Election ][Commissioner, ][New]Delhi and othersr. 7. karned Senior [Standing Counsel ][for ][Income ][Tax]the [impugned ][order ][and ][submits ][that ][the ][counter]supported shows the [decision ][taken by ]["rejection remarks" ][is]in consonance with [law.] 8. The [parties ][have confined ][their ][arguments ][to ][the ][extent]indicated above. g. We have heard the [parties at ][length ][and ][pemsed the ][record'] The imPugned order [reads ][thus:] (Rejection rematks: 6- It is submitted [that the ][impugned ][order ][is ][sought ][to ][be]supported by [assigning ][different ][and ][supplementary reasons ][in]the counter, which [cannot ][be taken ][into ][account ][in ][view ][of ][the]Constitution Bench [Judgment ][of ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][Mohindhr]Siagh GiIl and [Another v. ][Chief ][Election ][Commissioner, ][New]Delhi and othersr. 7. karned Senior [Standing Counsel ][for ][Income ][Tax]the [impugned ][order ][and ][submits ][that ][the ][counter]supported shows the [decision ][taken by ]["rejection remarks" ][is]in consonance with [law.] 8. The [parties ][have confined ][their ][arguments ][to ][the ][extent]indicated above. g. We have heard the [parties at ][length ][and ][pemsed the ][record'] The imPugned order [reads ][thus:] (Rejection rematks: The assessee's Issues [retated ][to ][disputes ][and ][taxes]settled in DTVsV 202O, [but ][violates conditions ][of ][the]same including no refund [of ][taxes ][paid. ][DTVsV ][2024]does not override the [DTVsV ][2O2O ][and has ][to ][be ][read]harmoniously with it. [Hcnce ], [the ][form ] [is ][rejected'] Rejection date: 05-Dec-2O24" 10. Before dealing with the contents of the "rejection remarks",we deem it proper to deal with the argument of learned SeniorStanding Counsel for Income Tax based on the counter frled inthis matter. In Mohindhr Gill's case theSingh supra, Constitution Bench made it clear that validity of al order of astatutory authority must be .yudged on the basis of reasonsassigned in the order and new reasons cannot be provided byfiling counter affidavit in the Court. The relevant portion readsthus: 'a. The second equallv relevalt matter is that when astatutory functionary makes an order based on certaingrounds. its validity must be iudged bv the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh rqanonsin the shape of affldavit or otherwise. Otherwise , an orderbad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to courton account of a challenge, get validated by additiona.lgrounds later brought out. We may here draw attention tothe observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: "Public orders, pubticly made, in exercise of a statutoryauthority cannot be construed in the light ofexplanations subsequently given by the oflicer makingthe order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind,or what he intended to do. Pubiic orders made bypublic authorities are meant to have public effect andare intended to affect the actings and conduct of thoseto whom they are addressed and must be construedobjectively w'ith reference to the language used in theorder itselL "authority cannot be construed in the light ofexplanations subsequently given by the oflicer makingthe order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind,or what he intended to do. Pubiic orders made bypublic authorities are meant to have public effect andare intended to affect the actings and conduct of thoseto whom they are addressed and must be construedobjectively w'ith reference to the language used in theorder itselL " Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they lqrowolder." (Emphasis Supplied) 11. The lau, laid down by Constitution Bench in MohindhrSingh GiII's case supra is still a good law. Thus, the reasonsassigned in the counter, which does not form part of rejectionorder will not instill life or improve the rejection order. Thus, weare not inclined to enter on those reasons and deem it [proper ]toexamine the reasons given in the "rejection remarks" 12. We may hasten to add that first line of 'rejection remarks" isnot happily worded. It is difficult to gather exact meaning of thefirst line. It is incomprehensible. However, the first line gives animpression as if something is settled pursuant to Scheme of 2O2Ocannot result into refund of taxes paid. Assuming that this is themeaning arising therein, this needs to be examined in view ofSection 90 of the Scheme which reads thus 11. The lau, laid down by Constitution Bench in MohindhrSingh GiII's case supra is still a good law. Thus, the reasonsassigned in the counter, which does not form part of rejectionorder will not instill life or improve the rejection order. Thus, weare not inclined to enter on those reasons and deem it [proper ]toexamine the reasons given in the "rejection remarks" 12. We may hasten to add that first line of 'rejection remarks" isnot happily worded. It is difficult to gather exact meaning of thefirst line. It is incomprehensible. However, the first line gives animpression as if something is settled pursuant to Scheme of 2O2Ocannot result into refund of taxes paid. Assuming that this is themeaning arising therein, this needs to be examined in view ofSection 90 of the Scheme which reads thus "90. Subject to the provisions of this Scheme, where adeclarant liles under the provisions of this Scheme on orbefore the last date, a declaration to the designatedauthority in accordance with the provisions of section 91in respect of tax arrear, then, notwithstandinq anvthingcontained in the Income-tax Act or anv other law for thetime being in force, the amount payable by the declarantunder this Scheme shall be as mentioned in the Tablebelow..." (Emphasis Supplied) 13. The second reason in the "rejection remarks" is that theScheme of 2024 does not override the Scheme of 2O2O. This reason is also required to be relooked in the light of [language]employed in Section 90 reproduced hereinabove. In [the ][considered]opinion of this Court, the impugned order is too [sketchy, ][too short]and too crSptic in nature. The ?easons' are [held ]to [be ][heart ][beat]of the tonclusions'. In the absence of reasons, [conclusions]cannot sustain [judicial ]scrutiny. The Supreme Court in KrantiAssociates (Pl Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan2 emphasized [the]need of assigning reasons in administrative, [quasi ][judicial ][and]judicial orders. Relevant para reads thus: "47. Summarising the above discussion, [this ][Court holds:] (a) In India the judicial trendhas always been to recordreasons, even in administrativedecisions, if such decisionsalfect anyone prejudicially.reasons, even in administrativedecisions, if such decisionsalfect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support ofits conclusions.its conclusions. (Q Insistence on recording of rcasons is meant to serve thewider principte of [justice ]that [justice ]must not [only ][be done ]itmust also appear to be done as [well.] (@ Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint onany possible arbitrary exercise of [judicial ]ald [quasi-judicial ][or]even administrative power.any possible arbitrary exercise of [judicial ]ald [quasi-judicial ][or]even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by thedecision-maker on relevant grounds and by [disregarding]extraneous considerat ions. (f Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a componentof a decision-making process as observing principles of naturaljustice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrativebodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superiorcourtscourts (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to ruleof law and constitutiona-l governance is in favour of reasoneddecisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the tifebloodof [judicial ]decision-making justifoing the principle that reasonis the soul ofjustice. (tJ Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be asdifferent as the judges and authorities who deliver them. Allthese decisions serve one common purpose which is todemonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have beenobjectively considered. This is important for susraining thelitigants' faith in the justice delivery system. fuJ [Insistence ][on ][reason ]is a requirement for both [judicial]accountability and transparency. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superiorcourtscourts (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to ruleof law and constitutiona-l governance is in favour of reasoneddecisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the tifebloodof [judicial ]decision-making justifoing the principle that reasonis the soul ofjustice. (tJ Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be asdifferent as the judges and authorities who deliver them. Allthese decisions serve one common purpose which is todemonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have beenobjectively considered. This is important for susraining thelitigants' faith in the justice delivery system. fuJ [Insistence ][on ][reason ]is a requirement for both [judicial]accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enoughabout his/her decision-making process then it is in:possible toabout his/her decision-making process then it is in:possible toknow whether the person deciding is faithful to the (loctnne ofprecedent or to principles of incrementalism. (/) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent. clear andsuccinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons. issuccinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons. isnot to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) lt cannot be doubted that transparency is the sinc qua nonof restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency indecision-making not only makes the judges an<t decision-of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency indecision-making not only makes the judges an<t decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject tobroader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of JudicialCandor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review Z3l-3Zl .) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates lrom thebroad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the saidrequirement is now virtually a component of human rights andbroad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the saidrequirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See RurzToijav. Spoin[(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, ar 562 para 29aad Angav. Uniuersitg of Oxford [200i EWCA Civ a05 (CA)] ,wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the EuropeanConvention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate andintelligent reasons must be given for [judicial ]decisions". (o) In all common law jurisdictions [judgments ]piay a vital role insetting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for developmentof law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of theessence and is virtually a part of"due process." 14. If the impugned order is tested on the anvil of principles laiddown in Kranti Associates (Pl Ltd. (supra), it cannot sustainjudicial scrutiny because of its cryptic nature and non-disclosureof reasons. Thus [orejection ]remarks" in ali the matters are setaside. The matters are restored back in the file of respondentNo.l, who, shall give personal hearing to the petitioner and pass afresh ordi:r, in accordance with law, without getting mechanicallyinfluenced by previous order and counter filed. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner intended to take us to the calculation part and the refund part and the relatedprovision. We are not inclined to enter into this aspect in theseproceedings. It may be remembered that the scope of judicialreview under Article 226 of the Constitution is basically on thedecision making process and relating to the reasons assigned inthe impugned order. If impugned order suffers from nonapplication of mind and does not conta.in adequate reasons, the proper course is to set aside the order by [directing ][the ][authorit5i]concerned to rehear the [party ]and [pass ][a ][fresh ][order. ][Thus ][we]are not inclined to undertake the [aforesaid exercise ][suggested ][by]learned counsel for the petitioner [(see ][Kalinga ][Miaing ][Corpn. v.]Unioa of India3). 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner intended to take us to the calculation part and the refund part and the relatedprovision. We are not inclined to enter into this aspect in theseproceedings. It may be remembered that the scope of judicialreview under Article 226 of the Constitution is basically on thedecision making process and relating to the reasons assigned inthe impugned order. If impugned order suffers from nonapplication of mind and does not conta.in adequate reasons, the proper course is to set aside the order by [directing ][the ][authorit5i]concerned to rehear the [party ]and [pass ][a ][fresh ][order. ][Thus ][we]are not inclined to undertake the [aforesaid exercise ][suggested ][by]learned counsel for the petitioner [(see ][Kalinga ][Miaing ][Corpn. v.]Unioa of India3). 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions [are ][disposed ][of, ][without]expressing any opinion on the merits [of ][the ][case. ][No ][order ][as to]costs. Miscellaneous petitions [pending, ]if any, [shall stand ][closed.] HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 sfA161<,<1C i:: [?l[i]f;,ja,a)E'il::/:.-ioi' COMMON ORDER WRIT PETITION Nos.35796, 36006 AND 36007 OF2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONSWITHOUT COSTS o(0IL)L,N)I