Material factual errors and ignored foundational documents justified remand for fresh adjudication, leaving tax liability undecided.

Material factual errors going to the root of the controversy justified setting aside the tribunal's orders, as the tribunal proceeded on an incorrect premise about the nature of the set-top boxes and failed to consider the subscription contract and applicable TRAI framework. The court held that such foundational mistakes were not suitable for correction through writ reappreciation under Article 226. The matters were therefore remanded for fresh adjudication on the relevant facts and documents, leaving the substantive tax liability open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned tribunal orders were liable to be set aside and the matters remanded for fresh consideration on account of material factual errors and non-consideration of the subscription contract and governing regulations.

Analysis: The record showed that the tribunal had proceeded on erroneous factual premises, including a finding that set top boxes sold to customers were part of non-traded goods, although the petitioner's consistent case was that they were traded goods sold on payment of VAT. The tribunal also failed to consider the subscription contract, which formed the basis of the transaction, and the applicable TRAI framework governing the petitioner's supply arrangements. Since such factual mistakes went to the root of the controversy, they could not appropriately be corrected in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The proper course was for the tribunal to examine the foundational documents and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The impugned tribunal orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration; the petitioner obtained procedural relief, but the substantive tax issues were left open.

Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to decide the tax liability on merits and restored the dispute to the tribunal for a fresh adjudication after reconsideration of the relevant facts and documents.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tribunal's decision rests on material factual errors going to the root of the controversy and relevant foundational documents have not been considered, the High Court may set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh decision rather than reappreciate the facts in writ jurisdiction.

---