Independent consideration of taxpayer replies is essential; an order based on assumed non-response was quashed for fresh adjudication.

An adjudication order was found unsustainable where it proceeded on an assumed failure to reply and did not independently consider the inspection statements, the taxpayer's replies and supporting documents before confirming the demand. The court held that such non-application of mind required the order to be quashed. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law, with a personal hearing to be granted before a new decision is taken.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order for the tax period 2024-2025 could be sustained when it proceeded on an assumed failure to respond and did not independently consider the inspection statements, replies and accompanying documents before confirming the demand.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on the footing that the taxable person had not availed the opportunity to reply, despite the record showing a reply after inspection, a further reply in DRC-06 and supporting documents. The order did not independently assess whether the statements recorded during inspection, the earlier reply and the adjudication reply together warranted confirmation of demand or dropping of proceedings. Such a manner of disposal reflected non-application of mind and called for a fresh decision on merits with an opportunity of personal hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law after granting personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order that fails to independently evaluate the material on record and denies a meaningful consideration of the taxpayer's replies and documents is unsustainable and must be set aside for fresh decision.

---