Non-speaking appellate orders are unsustainable when grounds are ignored, requiring remand for fresh consideration and hearing.

A quasi-judicial appellate order that rejects a statutory appeal without dealing with the grounds raised is non-speaking and vulnerable for want of application of mind. The authority must record brief reasons and consider the submissions to avoid arbitrariness. As the challenge was confined to the appellate order rather than the original demand, the proper course was remand. The HC set aside the appellate order and directed fresh consideration by the appellate authority after granting personal hearing and dealing with all submissions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order rejecting the statutory appeal without dealing with the grounds raised could be sustained and, if not, whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The appellate authority's order was found to be cryptic and non-speaking, as it did not advert to or deal with the submissions and grounds raised in the appeal. A quasi-judicial appellate order must disclose at least brief reasons to show application of mind and to avoid arbitrariness. Since the challenge was to the appellate order and not to the original demand order at this stage, the appropriate course was to remit the matter to the appellate authority for fresh decision after considering all submissions and granting personal hearing.

Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for reconsideration afresh. The relief was thus in favour of the petitioner.

---