' This appeal, by registered person, is against Order-in-Appeal No,488 of 2007 dated 19-10-2007 whereby imposition of penalty through Order-in-Original No, 4 of 2007 dated 5-1-2007 was upheld.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the appellant was condemned unheard, having not been associated in the adjudicating proceedings initiated through show-cause notice dated 13-10-2006. Secondly, it is argued that the order-in-original was non-speaking. Explaining facts of the case he submitted that show cause notice was issued on the allegation of violating provisions of section 2(5) of the Sales Tax Act read with S.R.O. 525(1)/2006 dated 6-6-2006 for non- submission of invoice summary along with returns filed for the relevant period. Therefore, imposition of penalty under section 33(3)(C) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 was proposed. In support of second ground, learned counsel has read from the order-in-original to show that facts of appellant's case were never discussed in the order-in-original which in fact was passed against Messrs Al-Badr Industries. He further submitted that appellant's name was included at Serial No,2 under paragraph 5 of the order, by observing that the order would apply mutatis mutandis to appellant's case as well. Learned counsel contended that the order-in-original was not a judicial or quasi-judicial order in stricto sensu. DR, assisted by Auditor (Mr. Musawar Abbas), replied that the appellant had never responded to the show cause notice nor had joined proceedings despite service of notices. He submitted that absence of the appellant, during adjudication was deliberate, therefore, was proceeded ex parte. When confronted to show from the order-in-original, where these facts against the appellant's were recorded, the DR was unable to deny that the order-in-original was silent on facts and allegations against the appellant.
3. Heard both the parties and record perused. Caption of the order-in-original suggests that it was only against Messrs Al-Badr Industries. However, in paragraph 5 names of ten other registered persons are included, with one sentence's explanation that the order shall also apply to other registered persons, having identical nature. Interestingly all registered persons were proceeded ex parte, without any detail or reason of proceeding them in absencia. We are convinced that the order-in-original is non-speaking qua the appellant, as facts or allegations/charges relating to the appellant were not discussed therein. The submissions made from departmental side, therefore, cannot be considered.
4. Honorable Supreme Court has held in Fasih-ud-Din Khan case (2010 SCM R 1778) that "in view of section 24-A of. General Clauses Act, even public functionaries are duty bound to decide the cases after application of mind". Honorable Court has mentioned three basic ingredients of every decision, relevant part is reproduced for facility:--
(13) It is settled principle of law that decision which is not based on reason is not judgment in the eyes of law. The following are three basic ingredients of every decision:
(i) Findings of fact both direct and inferential.
(ii) Statement of principles of law applicable to the legal terms disclosed by the facts.
(iii) The judgmetit passed on the combined effect of the above ingredients."
' For this reason alone we vacate the Order-in-Original No,4 of 2007 dated 5-1-2007 to the extent of appellant only and the impugned order-in-appeal is also cancelled for ignoring such a glaring defect in the order-in-original. It may, however, be observed that the department can initiate fresh proceedings if limitation is available under the Sales Tax laws.
' Appeal is allowed.