Remand for fresh consideration after personal hearing was upheld where disputed factual material remained unresolved.

The remand directing the designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas scheme to reconsider the matter after granting personal hearing was upheld because the dispute turned on unresolved factual material, including whether the amount said to have been paid had been properly considered and whether the opening and closing balance discrepancies affected the demand. No legal infirmity in the direction was shown, so interference in appeal was declined. The Committee was permitted to decide the matter within the stipulated time, even though the scheme had ended.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of remand passed by the Single Judge, directing the designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas scheme to reconsider the matter after granting personal hearing, warranted interference in appeal.

Analysis: The dispute centred on whether the amount said to have been paid by the respondent had been properly considered by the Committee and whether the discrepancies in the opening and closing balances justified the original demand. The remand was made to enable reconsideration of the material on record after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The appellate Court found no reason to interfere with that course, and also noted that the scheme had come to an end, but permitted the Committee to decide the matter within a stipulated time.

Conclusion: The remand order was upheld and the appeal was not entertained on merits in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The direction for fresh decision by the designated Committee after hearing the respondent remained undisturbed, and the matter was allowed to proceed for reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not interfere with a remand order requiring reconsideration after personal hearing where the dispute turns on unresolved factual material and no legal infirmity in the direction is shown.

---