Speaking order requirement: Tribunal's unexplained departure from a coordinate view led to setting aside and remand.

A quasi-judicial order departing from an earlier coordinate view must record reasons and follow judicial discipline; otherwise it is not a speaking order. The Tribunal sustained tax at 12.5% on thermoplastic road marking material without dealing with the earlier decision classifying the goods as a chemical compound taxable at 4%. The High Court found the order unsustainable because it did not explain why the prior view was not followed. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order sustaining tax at 12.5% on thermoplastic road marking material could be set aside for being a non-speaking order passed without dealing with the earlier coordinate decision and the rival classification of the goods.

Analysis: The only issue finally decided was the validity of the Tribunal's order-making process. The Court found that an earlier Tribunal decision had classified thermoplastic road marking material as a chemical compound taxable at 4%, yet the impugned order differed from that view without recording reasons. The Court held that where a coordinate view is not accepted, reasons must be given and, if necessary, the matter should be dealt with in accordance with judicial discipline. An order that does not disclose why the earlier view was not followed is not a proper speaking order and cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was unsustainable and was set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh decision after hearing the parties.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded on the ground of absence of reasons and non-observance of judicial discipline, resulting in remand for reconsideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial or judicial order that departs from a coordinate decision must record reasons, and failure to pass a speaking order vitiates the decision and warrants remand.

---