Undisclosed computation material cannot sustain a tax demand; remand required after disclosure and fresh hearing.

A tax demand based on a worksheet used for quantification could not be sustained where the worksheet was not supplied to the assessee, because effective rebuttal requires disclosure of the material relied on for computation. The admitted amount of input credit on exempted services remained undisputed, but the balance demand was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after furnishing the worksheet and granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of tax, other than the admitted amount, could be sustained when the worksheet relied upon for computing the demand was not supplied to the appellant, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The demand was founded on a worksheet said to have been relied upon by the adjudicating authority, but the appellant was not given that worksheet to verify the basis of the computation. Without access to the material used to quantify the disputed demand, the appellant could not effectively meet the case against it. The admitted amount of input credit availed on exempted services was not disputed, but the remaining demand required reconsideration after disclosure of the worksheet and a fresh hearing.

Conclusion: The demand, except the admitted amount, was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after supplying the worksheet and giving reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand based on undisclosed computation material cannot be sustained without supplying that material and affording a reasonable opportunity to contest it.

---