Natural justice requires a reasoned quasi-judicial order; withdrawal of excise payment was quashed and remitted for fresh decision.

The withdrawal of a taxpayer's monthly central excise duty payment facility was set aside because the first order was passed without hearing and the later order failed to deal with the objections raised. The court held that a quasi-judicial authority must observe natural justice and give a reasoned order that considers the party's contentions; otherwise, the decision is unsustainable and causes miscarriage of justice. The matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits by a competent officer other than the officer who made the earlier order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders withdrawing the facility of monthly payment of central excise duty and confirming that withdrawal could be sustained when the first order was passed without hearing and the second order did not deal with the petitioner's contentions.

Analysis: The orders were passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. The first order was made without hearing the petitioner, and the subsequent order, though passed after hearing, did not record reasons or deal with the objections raised. A quasi-judicial authority is required to pass a reasoned order after considering the contentions advanced, and failure to do so results in miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The impugned orders could not be sustained and were quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh decision on merits by a competent officer other than the officer who passed the earlier order.

---