Reasoned order requirement in tax demands: non-speaking demand quashed and matter remanded for fresh hearing.

A tax demand order was found vulnerable because it did not deal with the petitioner's factual and legal submissions and did not disclose reasons. The document applies the principle that administrative and quasi-judicial decisions affecting civil consequences must be reasoned, consider material contentions, and comply with procedural fairness. As the order was non-speaking, it was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration by the authority after fresh notice and hearing, with directions to pass a reasoned speaking order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned demand order was liable to be quashed for being non-speaking and for failing to consider the petitioner's factual and legal submissions, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The challenge arose from a tax demand made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order under challenge was examined against the requirement that administrative and quasi-judicial determinations affecting civil consequences must deal with the material submissions placed before the authority and must disclose reasons. As the impugned order did not consider the petitioner's legal and factual contentions, it was treated as suffering from a lack of reasons and from procedural unfairness. In consequence, the proper course was fresh adjudication by the authority after notice and hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the proceedings were remanded for de novo consideration with a fresh show cause notice, hearing, and a reasoned speaking order.

---