Fair hearing in de novo adjudication requires fresh merits review; pending Supreme Court appeal does not justify staying proceedings.

A de novo adjudication must address the core factual questions, including the divisibility of contracts, separate rendering of services, and the assessee's claims on abatement and credit eligibility, and it must be passed after an effective opportunity of hearing. Where these matters are not properly examined, the order is liable to be set aside and the dispute remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. Mere pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court does not justify keeping statutory proceedings in abeyance in the absence of a stay; the authority may continue proceedings in accordance with law and consider any later Supreme Court ruling if it arises.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the de novo adjudication order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after affording a proper opportunity of hearing and considering the relevant evidence. (ii) Whether the adjudicating authority should keep the proceedings in abeyance pending disposal of the assessee's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue (i): Whether the de novo adjudication order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after affording a proper opportunity of hearing and considering the relevant evidence.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the original and de novo adjudication had not dealt with the core factual questions in a proper manner, including whether the contracts were divisible, whether different services had been rendered separately, and whether the assessee's contentions regarding abatement and credit eligibility had been examined. It was also noted that the assessee had not been given an effective opportunity of hearing before the de novo order was passed. In these circumstances, the matter required fresh adjudication with a fair opportunity to place evidence and submissions.

Conclusion: The order was liable to be set aside and the matter was to be remanded for fresh adjudication in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudicating authority should keep the proceedings in abeyance pending disposal of the assessee's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that there was no stay of the earlier remand order and that it was not proper to halt statutory proceedings merely because an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. The proper course was to permit the adjudicating authority to proceed in accordance with law and to consider whatever evidence and pleadings were placed before it, while taking note of any eventual Supreme Court decision if it arose.

Conclusion: The direction to keep the proceedings in abeyance was not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The de novo order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication after a fair hearing and consideration of the assessee's evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a de novo adjudication fails to consider the material issues and is passed without an effective opportunity of hearing, the appropriate course is remand for fresh decision on merits, and pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court does not by itself justify stalling statutory proceedings absent a stay.

---