Non-application of mind in tax adjudication led to remand for a fresh speaking order after ignoring key exemption pleas.

An adjudication order denying abatement was set aside because it proceeded on an asserted short payment due to alleged non-inclusion of free supplies, even though the record and show cause notice did not establish any such supplies. The order also failed to address the assessee's specific pleas that certain projects were exempt or not liable to service tax. As the reasoning was contradictory, unsupported by evidence, and showed non-consideration of the pleadings, it was treated as a case of gross non-application of mind and could not be sustained. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh speaking order after considering the assessee's contentions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order, which denied abatement and failed to deal with the assessee's pleas on taxability of the projects, could be sustained, and whether the matter required remand for a speaking order.

Analysis: The order recorded that the dispute concerned only short payment arising from non-inclusion of free supplies, although the record and the show cause notice did not show any free supplies by the service recipients. It also failed to address the assessee's specific contentions that certain projects were exempt or not liable to service tax. The reasoning in the order was found to be contradictory, unsupported by evidence, and reflective of complete non-consideration of the pleadings. In these circumstances, the adjudication was treated as a product of gross non-application of mind and incapable of being sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the primary adjudicating authority to pass a fresh speaking order after considering the assessee's pleadings and contentions.

---