THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 23637 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) The order of 3rd respondent dt. 6.7.2011 rejecting the stay application of the petitioner is assailed in this writ petition. The 1st respondent passed the order of assessment under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of the petitioner’s company for the period 2004-05, on 29.1.2007. The 2nd respondent in exercise of powers under Section 20 (2) of the Act revised the assessment and subjected handling charges and temporary registration charges to tax, treating the same as turnover at the hands of the petitioner; as also charges for servicing of the vehicles falling under works contract and subjected the same to tax under Section 5F of the Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the STAT and applied to the 3rd respondent for stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 7,58,021/-. By the impugned order, the 3rd respondent rejected the stay petition. To the extent relevant and material, the order of the 3rd respondent rejecting stay application reads as under: “The grounds of appeal are perused along with revision orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta, Prima facie there are no valid grounds to order stay of collection of disputed taxes. Hence, the stay application filed by the appellant is hereby rejected.” Clearly, the order is laconic and non-speaking order. No reasons whatsoever are recorded by the 3rd respondent for rejecting the stay application. The 3rd respondent is a quasi-judicial authority and it is axiomatic in the context, that the 3rd respondent must record some reasons however brief, which disclose how the mind of the authority is applied to the facts and contentions in the application. It is well settled that the reasons are the links between the material on which a decision is based and the decision. The order, in the circumstances, is perverse and cannot be sustained. Sri.Krishna Koundinya, the learned Standing Counsel on instructions from the 3rd respondent states that the 3rd respondent sincerely regrets for having passed the unreasoned order and offers the explanation such an order was passed due to pressure of work. In the circumstances and in the light of the regret of the 3rd respondent conveyed to this court, we refrain from imposing costs, which normally would follow such perverse exercise of quasi-judicial jurisdiction. On the aforesaid premise, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the 3rd respondent dt. 6.7.2011 is quashed and the 3rd respondent is directed to pass a fresh order on the application of the petitioner seeking stay pending appeal before the STAT. Nothing in this order shall be deemed to be an expression by this Court on the merits of the stay application filed by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is at liberty to pass an order de novo but after recording reasons, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 25.8.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 23637 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 25.8.2011.