Reasoned remand orders must state why interference is justified; an unreasoned omnibus remand was held unsustainable.

Reasons are an essential part of adjudication, and an appellate or revisional authority that overturns a reasoned order and remands the matter must itself explain why interference is warranted. An omnibus remand based only on a general assertion of infirmity or statutory violation, without dealing with the merits or showing why the lower appellate findings are erroneous, is legally unsustainable. The Karnataka High Court noted that the Tribunal had not recorded adequate reasons before setting aside the appellate order, and treated the remand as causing miscarriage of justice. The remand order was therefore set aside and the dispute was directed to be reconsidered by a reasoned order in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the appellate order and remanding the reassessment proceedings without recording reasons on the merits of the controversy.

Analysis: The revision challenged only the Tribunal's remand direction. The High Court noted that the first appellate authority had dealt with the rival contentions in detail, whereas the Tribunal disposed of the matter by an omnibus observation that the reassessment suffered from infirmity and violation of statutory rules, without explaining how the appellate findings were erroneous. The Court held that reasons are an essential part of adjudication, and that an order setting aside a reasoned appellate decision and remanding the matter must itself disclose the basis for such interference. Since the Tribunal had not examined the issues on merits or recorded reasons for overturning the appellate order, the remand was treated as legally unsustainable and as causing miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The remand order of the Tribunal was held to be unsustainable, and the revision was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with a direction to decide the dispute by a reasoned order.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate or revisional order that overturns a reasoned decision and remands the matter must itself contain clear reasons showing why interference is warranted; an unreasoned omnibus remand is liable to be interfered with.

---