HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1189 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State-Revenue. 2. The only point pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal of the petitioner has been decided by means of the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and 25.10.2024 passed by the respondent No.3 without affording any adequate opportunity coupled with the fact that on the said date as per the order itself, none of the parties were represented and yet the appeal has been decided on merits in absence of the respective parties. 3. It has also been urged that from a perusal of the order in appeal, it would indicate that it does not reflect any reason and merely the grounds of appeal have been reproduced and by a cursory order the appeal has been decided which apparently is a non reasoned and non speaking order. 4. Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing for the State- Revenue while refuting aforesaid submissions has pointed out that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner which were not availed and apparently, in absence thereof, now the petitioner does not have a right to urge that opportunity has not been provided. In the aforesaid circumstance, the petition be dismissed. 5. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it indicates that several dates were fixed, however, what could not be disputed by the counsel for the revenue that on the date when the appeal is said to have been heard and decided i.e 22.07.2025. The order indicates that none had put in appearance either for the assessee Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Singh, Deepak Kumar Pandey, Sachin Kumar, Shailesh Sachan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Ammar Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mohd. Ammar, Sitapur .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., State Tax, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) or the revenue. It also could not be disputed that there is no reason whatsoever indicated in the impugned order except reproducing the grounds of appeal. 6. Be that as it may, it is now too well settled to be disputed that any order whether judicial or quasi judicial must comply with the basic postulates of adherence to the principles of natural justice which includes giving reasons for an order which apparently in the instant case is missing. [See: Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. Vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 431]. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear view that by not indicating any reason in the order the same being non speaking is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and accordingly, the order in appeal dated 22.07.2025 is set aside. 8. The matter shall stand restored on the Board of the appellate authority who shall after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall decide the same fresh in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed. November 6, 2025 Asheesh WTAX No. 1189 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench