Maintainability objections must be decided first; failure to do so can justify setting aside the appellate order and remand.

A maintainability objection going to the root of the matter must be decided at the threshold before any further appellate action. The text states that the appellate authority failed to record a reasoned finding on that jurisdictional issue and instead proceeded to remand the matter for de novo adjudication. That omission warranted interference, and the matter was to be reconsidered by the Commissioner (Appeals) through a fresh speaking order after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh consideration of all issues, including maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded because the maintainability objection, going to the root of the matter, was not decided.

Analysis: The maintainability objection raised by the appellant was a foundational issue and should have been decided at the outset. The appellate authority did not answer that objection and instead proceeded to remand the matter for de novo adjudication without dealing with the objection. The omission to record a reasoned finding on such a jurisdictional issue warranted interference. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) with a fresh speaking order after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was remanded for fresh consideration of all issues, including maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: A maintainability objection that goes to the root of the matter must be decided at the threshold, and an appellate order that omits such determination may be set aside for fresh disposal after hearing the parties.

---