Failure to consider a refund claim after prior direction can justify quashing and remand for fresh speaking adjudication.

An adjudicating order that omits consideration of a refund claim, despite an earlier direction to decide it in accordance with law, is legally deficient and liable to be quashed. The Court set aside the impugned orders because they did not address the refund issue and directed de novo consideration through a speaking order after due notice, personal hearing, and an opportunity to file written submissions and respond to relied-upon materials. The merits of the refund dispute were left open for the authority to decide afresh.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders, which did not deal with the refund claim despite the earlier direction, were liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The earlier order had required the authority to consider the petitioner's entitlement to refund in accordance with law. The subsequent orders did not address the refund issue and, on the respondent's fair concession, were found to be deficient. The Court therefore quashed the two orders and directed de novo consideration, with a speaking order to be passed after due notice, personal hearing, and an opportunity to file written submissions and respond to any authorities relied upon.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained a fresh adjudication on the refund issue, while the merits of the tax dispute were left open for decision by the authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudicating order fails to consider a refund claim despite a prior judicial direction to do so, the order is liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for a reasoned decision after observance of natural justice.

---