R.K. GULATI, J.

(1.) This is a sales tax revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (for short "the Act") and is directed against the order dated 8th January, 1988, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Moradabad Bench, Moradabad.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this revision are that M/s. Taharpur Brick Works (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1985-86. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax. During the pendency of the said appeal, initially the assessee moved an application under Clause (ii) of the proviso attached to Section 9(3-A) of the Act. This provision empowers the first appellate authority for special and adequate reasons to be recorded in writing to waive or relax the requirement of the payment regarding one-third amount of the disputed amount of tax, required to be deposited under Clause (i) of the aforesaid proviso, before an application for stay could be entertained. The plea taken was that the assessee-firm had been closed and the erstwhile partners are not in such financial position to pay even l/3rd of the disputed tax. By an order dated 17th November, 1987, the appellate authority permitted the assessee to deposit only 13 per cent of the disputed tax and the balance of 20 per cent of l/3rd was waived.

(3.) Thereafter, the assessee moved another application, before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) under Sub-section (3-A) of Section 9 of the Act for staying the realisation of the disputed amount of tax amounting to Rs. 61,969.52 during the pendency of the first appeal. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) by his order dated 21st December, 1987 stayed only 60 per cent of the amount on the condition that the assessee would deposit in cash Rs. 24,781, i.e., 40 per cent of the disputed tax.

(4.) Being aggrieved by the partial stay order, the assessee filed an appeal against that order before the Sales Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 8th January, 1988. It is against this order, the present revision has been filed.

(5.) The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the plea for full stay of the disputed tax was negatived by the Tribunal without passing a reasoned and speaking order, which was not open to the Tribunal acting as an appellate authority. On merits, the counsel contended that the impugned order of the Tribunal is manifestly erroneous, inasmuch as the Tribunal failed to notice that when the assessee on account of poor financial condition, was unable to deposit 1/3rd of the tax, which was a smaller amount and was waived by the Assistant Commissioner, how could the assessee be expected and required to deposit 40 per cent of the disputed amount, which was a much larger amount. In other words, relaxation given by one hand could not be permitted to be taken away by another hand, by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), but the Sales Tax Tribunal failed to conside'r this aspect of the matter, in deciding the assessee's appeal.

(6.) Now, it is not disputed that the Tribunal while considering the assessee's appeal against the partial stay given by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax was discharging its function as an appellate authority and was acting as a quasi-judicial authority. The order passed by the Tribunal is subject to scrutiny by the High Court as a revision is maintainable against that order under Section 11 of the Act. That order can also be questioned under Article 136 or 226 of the Constitution at the instance of an aggrieved party, in an appropriate case. Thus it is incumbent on the appellate authority to give reasons while disposing of the appeal. The order as such must be speaking order and the decision given must be supported by reasons, so that the superior court is assured that it is in accordance with law and not a result of caprice, whim or reached on the policy.

(7.) In Baidya Nath Sarma v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Assam [1983] 140 ITR 801 a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court explaining the need of reasoned order by the quasi-judicial bodies observed as under : Giving of reasons is now a part of natural justice. It is, accordingly, necessary for the quasi-judicial bodies to give reasons. There is a general obligation on adjudicatory bodies to give reasons for the decisions even when statutes do not impose such a condition. This obligation to give reasons forms a part of natural justice and springs from the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 32, 226, 136 and 227 of the Constitution...An adjudicatory authority cannot disarm the court by taking refuge in silence.

(8.) Broadly speaking, the requirement of giving reason for an order derives its authority from maxim that justice should not only be done, but also be seem to be done. A party to the proceeding is entitled to know the reasons for the decision that deprives him of his statutory right. The duty to give reasons is a safety-valve against arbitrary exercise or the discretionary power. In Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1785, the Supreme Court dealing with this question observed ; It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons ... The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alter am part em, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its'proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law.

(9.) In the instant case, the only reason that is found in the order of the Tribunal, is that profit and loss account showed profit in past and during this year. It must be remembered that the Tribunal was dealing with the case for the assessment year 1985-86 and the impugned order was passed in the month of February, 1988. There is nothing to indicate what was the financial position of the assessee when the Tribunal passed its order. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. M. L. Capoor AIR 1974 SC 87 at page 97, the reason recorded must not be an apology for reasons, which are required to be recorded by the quasi-judicial authority.

(10.) In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers' Union AIR 1973 SC 2758 at 2761, Dwivedi, J., speaking for the Supreme Court, has observed: Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to this court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the court. The court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. In many cases, this investment of time and industry will be saved if reasons are given in support of the conclusions.

(11.) It must be clarified at this stage that I am not suggesting that very detailed reasons are required to be given while dealing with an appeal against the stay matter, but all that is necessary, is that reasons appropriate to the contrary should be recorded, a laconic order unsupported by reasons or on irrelevant considerations, cannot be upheld.

(12.) A perusal of the order under revision passed by the Tribunal clearly indicates that it disposed of the assessee's appeal in a perfunct

ory manner and without dealing with the merits of the assessee's claim. In making an order on appeal, as stated earlier, the Tribunal is expected to touch briefly, the controversy involved and the reasons for its conclusion. (13.) I am not satisfied that the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, under revision can be sustained. (14.) In view of my above findings on first part of the assessee's contentions, it is not necessary for me to discuss the case on merits. The case is sent back to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh. (15.) In passing the consequential order, as required under Section 11(8) of the Act, the Sales Tax Tribunal shall restore the assessee's appeal, giving rise to this revision, to its original number and shall decide it afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law.