Speaking order requirement led to remand for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant.

A communication that merely conveyed the Commissioner's direction, without recording that the appellant had been heard or giving reasons, could not be treated as a speaking order. In the absence of adjudicatory discussion, the matter required fresh consideration. The appeal was therefore allowed by remand, with directions to hear the appellant and pass a speaking order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned communication could be sustained as a speaking order and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant.

Analysis: The impugned letter merely conveyed the Commissioner's direction and did not disclose that the appellant had been heard before the direction was issued. In the absence of reasons and adjudicatory discussion, it could not be treated as a speaking order. The appropriate course was to remit the matter for fresh consideration after granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed by way of remand and the Commissioner was directed to hear the appellant and pass a speaking order.

---