IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 3079 of 2009 Between: M/s. K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) Priviate Limited, Midspace Cyberabad, Survey No. 64 (Part), APIIC Software Layout, 1st Floor, Titus Towers, Building No. 10, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081, rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Ganesh Subuddi. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vat Managment Unit I, Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 The Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajigiri Circle, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the 3rd Respondent in CCT's Ref.No.LIII(4)/785/2008 dated 23-1-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and a non speaking order and consequently set aside the same and further direct the 4th Respondent not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the balance demand of Rs.86,04,472/- pursuant to the order of the 1st respondent dated 10.09.2008 for the periods 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007- 08 under the APVAT Act, pending disposal of the appeals before the 2nd Respondent, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned standing counsel Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard and disposed of. The grievance made in the petition is that the impugned order dated 23-1-2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal is bad in law for the reason that it is not a speaking order. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that an application placed before respondent No.2 for stay of recovery of the disputed tax during the pendency of the appeal was rejected on 21-11-2008. Being aggrieved by the said order, a revision application was filed before respondent No.3 but that was also rejected by respondent No.3, on 23-1-2009 without assigning any reason and the same has been challenged in this petition. He has drawn our attention to the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order, which is as follows: “I have carefully examined the orders of the appellate authority and the impugned orders, it is observed that there is no prima facie case to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax.” It has been submitted by him that no reason of whatsoever type has been recorded in the impugned order while rejecting the revision application and, therefore, the same be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that, as there was no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, the appellate authority viz., respondent No.2 has rejected the application for stay and respondent No.3-revisional authority has rightly affirmed that order. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the impugned order, we are of the view that it is not a ‘speaking order’. In our opinion, the judicial or quasi judicial authority should pass a reasoned order for coming to a particular conclusion so that not only the parties to the litigation can know the reasons, but the authority examining validity of the order can also know the reasons for which a particular conclusion was arrived at and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside so that the revision application can be decided afresh. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to proceed further with the revision application before respondent No.3 so that the matter can be heard afresh. The learned standing counsel has submitted that the revision application can be heard on 3-3-2009 at 11-00 AM. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has waived service of notice so that the revisional authority viz., respondent No.3 need not issue a fresh notice with regard to the hearing of the application on 3-3-2009. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has assured this Court that his counter-part appearing before the revisional authority shall not pray for time unless it is really required and shall render assistance to the authority so that the revision application can be decided as soon as possible. The petition stands disposed of as allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside with no order as to costs. Till the revision application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken for recovery of the amount sought to be recovered under the impugned order. __________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 18th February, 2009. GRR