The hallmark of judicial propriety lies in reasoned orders. The Indian judiciary, through consistent pronouncements, has emphasized that every order-especially appealable ones-must reflect an application of mind, adherence to principles of natural justice, and transparency in the reasoning process. The absence of a reasoned order not only undermines the integrity of the adjudication process but may also vitiate the entire proceeding.
1. Reasoned Order is Not a Choice- It's the Law
The Supreme Court in Omar Usman Chamadia vs Abdul [(2004) 13 SCC 234 :: AIR 2004 SC 1508] laid down a categorical principle: a reasoned order is a legal requirement in all appealable decisions. This position of law reinforces that the right to appeal carries with it a concomitant obligation upon adjudicating authorities to disclose the rationale behind their conclusions. The absence of reasons could render such orders arbitrary.
In this context, the Supreme Court also declined to interfere with a High Court's direction to reopen penalty proceedings, because the High Court had passed a well-reasoned remand order to the assessing officer. (Toyota Motor Corp. vs CIT, (2008) 17 SCC 535 :: (2008) 306 ITR 52)
2. Higher Scrutiny for Judicial Orders
In CCT vs Shukla Bros. [(2010) 4 SCC 785 :: (2010) 254 ELT 6 :: (2010) 30 VST 114], the Supreme Court drew a crucial distinction: judicial orders must meet a higher standard of reasoning compared to administrative or quasi-judicial orders. While a judicial order need not be lengthy or elaborate, there must be clear articulation of the basis for granting or declining relief. The presence of even brief but cogent reasoning is vital to demonstrate fairness and application of law.
3. Non-consideration of Raised Issues = Non-speaking Order
The importance of addressing every material contention was highlighted in Mathur Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [(2018) 14 SCC 159 :: (2018) 400 ITR 26]. The apex court held that if a substantial legal issue raised in appeal is not considered, the resultant order lacks the character of a speaking order. The appropriate remedy in such cases is to seek a review, not an appeal, since the non-consideration reflects procedural impropriety rather than substantive illegality.
4. Cryptic Orders Without Reasoning are Unsustainable
Perhaps the most telling critique of non-reasoned adjudication came in CCE vs Emco Ltd. [(2015) 10 SCC 321 :: (2015) 322 ELT 394]. In this case, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal with a mere reference to a settled precedent-without explaining how the facts aligned with it. The Supreme Court condemned this as a cryptic, unreasoned reversal, underscoring that judicial discipline requires an express discussion of applicability of precedent-not just a passive reference.
Conclusion: A Call for Judicial Discipline
The consistent reiteration of this principle across tax, civil, and constitutional jurisprudence serves as a clarion call to all adjudicating authorities-especially those in tax administration, GST tribunals, and appellate forums. A reasoned order is not just good practice; it is foundational to justice.
It protects the rights of taxpayers, lends credibility to the tax system, and ensures that appellate and superior courts can meaningfully review the legality and correctness of subordinate decisions.
As the landscape of Indian taxation becomes increasingly digitized and compliance-intensive, the need for judicial transparency through reasoned orders becomes all the more crucial.
CAclubindia
