Signature authenticity in regulatory enforcement required fresh factual verification, leading to quashing of the penalty order and remand.

Where the genuineness of signatures on transfer deeds is central to alleged violations under the PFUTP, SAST and PIT Regulations, and the existing record is insufficient, factual verification through additional evidence is required. The Tribunal held that the dispute over signature authenticity could not be properly resolved on the material before it, especially in light of a forensic comparison report. The impugned penalty order was quashed and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication, with the appellant to be given a reasonable opportunity to present further documents and case materials.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty order for alleged violations of the PFUTP Regulations, the SAST Regulations and the PIT Regulations should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in view of the dispute regarding the authenticity of the appellant's signature on the transfer deeds and the need for additional evidence.

Analysis: The appellant disputed the genuineness of the signatures appearing on the transfer deeds and produced a forensic signature comparison report. In the circumstances, the authenticity of the alleged signatures required factual verification. The Tribunal found that the controversy could not be satisfactorily resolved on the existing material and that additional evidence was necessary for a proper adjudication. The parties were also kept at liberty to place further documents before the adjudicating officer.

Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the genuineness of a signature central to the alleged regulatory violation requires factual verification and additional evidence, the proper course is to set aside the existing order and remit the matter for de novo consideration.

---