Non-speaking rejection under Vivad Se Vishwas scheme set aside for lack of reasons and remitted for fresh consideration.

A cryptic or non-speaking rejection of a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme could not be sustained because administrative and quasi-judicial orders affecting rights must contain cogent reasons. The validity of the rejection had to be tested only on the reasons recorded in the order itself, and additional grounds later offered in the counter could not cure the defect. As the remarks showed non-application of mind and inadequate reasoning, the rejection was set aside and the matter was remitted to the authority for fresh consideration after affording personal hearing. The challenge succeeded on procedure alone, without any adjudication of the underlying tax claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the declaration/application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 could be sustained when the rejection remarks were cryptic and non-speaking, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the authority.

Analysis: The rejection order was tested only on the reasons contained in it, and additional reasons supplied in the counter could not be used to validate the order. The reasons in the rejection remarks were found to be unclear and insufficiently reasoned. The Court applied the settled principle that administrative and quasi-judicial orders affecting rights must disclose cogent reasons, and that reasons are integral to the validity of the decision-making process. In judicial review, where the impugned decision suffers from non-application of mind and lack of adequate reasons, the appropriate course is to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The rejection remarks were set aside, and the matter was restored to the authority to afford personal hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioners succeeded on the procedural challenge, without any adjudication on the merits of the underlying tax claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A cryptic or non-speaking rejection order affecting statutory rights cannot be sustained in judicial review, and its validity must be judged solely on the reasons recorded in the order itself.

---