Reasoned tax adjudication required where authority ignores assessee's explanation for delayed movement of goods

An adjudicatory order affecting tax liability must consider the assessee's explanation and record reasons. Where the reply explained that e-way bills were generated on time but movement of goods was delayed because the vehicle became operable only the next day due to a technical fault, the authority's failure to address that explanation rendered the order unsustainable. The HC quashed the demand order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing a reasoned and speaking order after examining the reply and granting a hearing if necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand order was liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration because the authority did not consider the petitioner's explanation regarding delayed movement of goods.

Analysis: The petitioner's reply specifically explained that the e-way bills had been generated on time, but the vehicle could not move on the scheduled date due to a technical fault and became operative only on the next day. The impugned order did not advert to this explanation or the specific grounds raised in the reply. A decision affecting the petitioner's liability had to be made after considering the explanation and by passing a reasoned order. Since that exercise was not undertaken, the order could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the authority to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order after considering the petitioner's reply and granting an opportunity of hearing if required.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicatory order affecting tax liability must consider the assessee's explanation and record reasons; failure to do so vitiates the order and justifies remand for fresh decision.

---