Non-speaking adjudication order on service classification led to remand for fresh findings on contracts and evidence.

An adjudication order must contain clear findings on the nature of services, contractual terms and the documentary evidence relied upon; a mere recitation of exemption entries and demand figures is insufficient. Because the impugned order did not appraise the material placed by the respondent or explain why the services were treated as exempt, it was held to be non-speaking. The matter was therefore required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after considering all submissions and evidence and recording definitive findings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was a speaking order supported by findings on the nature of services, contractual terms and documentary evidence, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The order under challenge recorded the exemption entries and the figures of demand, but did not contain findings on the actual nature of the services rendered to different universities and authorities, the terms and conditions of the contracts, or the documents said to support payment and classification of the services. In the absence of a reference to, or appraisal of, the material placed by the respondent, the reasoning for treating the services as exempt could not be verified. The lack of definitive reasoning and conclusions rendered the order non-speaking. The proper course was to send the matter back so that the adjudicating authority could consider all submissions and evidence and record clear findings afresh.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after considering the respondent's submissions and evidence.

---