Mandatory appellate reasoning fails where points for determination and reasons are omitted in a Tribunal order.

An appellate order under the U.P. VAT Act and Rules must state the points for determination, the decision on each point, and the reasons for that decision, in a manner comparable to Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. The Court treated these requirements as mandatory and found that the Tribunal's order failed to properly frame the issues or give a legally sufficient reasoned determination. The partial reasoning already recorded did not cure the defect. The order was therefore held unsustainable for non-compliance with the mandatory appellate procedure, and the appeal was to be decided afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order was vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision under the governing appellate procedure.

Analysis: The appeal before the Tribunal had to be disposed of in accordance with Section 57(5) and Section 57(8) of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008, read with Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008. Those provisions require a written appellate judgment to identify the points for determination, record the decision on each point, and give reasons. The Court treated these requirements as akin to Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been held mandatory. On examining the Tribunal's order, the Court found that it did not properly frame the points for determination or supply a legally sufficient reasoned determination on them, and that limited reasoning already present did not cure the defect.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was held to be unsustainable for breach of the mandatory appellate procedure, and the revision was allowed with a direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate order governed by a provision requiring points for determination, decision thereon and reasons is mandatory in character, and failure to comply renders the order legally unsustainable.

---