Coextensive appellate powers require a merits-based speaking order; remand is unwarranted when the record can be decided directly.

An appellate authority exercising coextensive and co-terminus powers should examine the record, call for further details if needed, and decide the controversy on merits rather than remand the matter merely for statistical disposal. Where the revenue challenges relief granted by the adjudicating authority, a speaking and reasoned order is required after hearing the parties and considering the available material. The remand was therefore treated as unnecessary, and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication by the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the matter should be remanded to the appellate authority or decided on merits by the authority itself.

Analysis: The appellate authority had the duty to scrutinise the claim and decide the controversy when revenue had challenged the relief granted by the adjudicating authority. A remand for statistical disposal, without examining the record and the materials already available, was found unwarranted. The authority possessed coextensive and co-terminus powers and could call for further details before deciding the matter. The proceeding was therefore sent back for fresh consideration with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

Conclusion: The remand was set aside as unnecessary, and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication after hearing the parties and examining the record.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by remanding the dispute for a fresh, reasoned decision, with waiver of pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority exercising coextensive and co-terminus powers should decide the controversy on merits and should not resort to remand merely for statistical disposal when the record can be examined for a speaking order.

---