TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order, passed after remand, was liable to be quashed for failure to consider the petitioner's replies and submissions and for want of reasons; (ii) Whether the matter required to be sent back for fresh consideration with a reasoned order after hearing the parties.
Issue (i): Whether the impugned order, passed after remand, was liable to be quashed for failure to consider the petitioner's replies and submissions and for want of reasons.
Analysis: The order under challenge did not deal with the submissions made during the personal hearing or with the earlier replies furnished by the petitioner. The matter had already been remanded for de novo consideration with a direction to pass a reasoned order dealing with all submissions. In spite of that direction, the authority again proceeded without addressing the petitioner's contentions, rendering the order unsustainable.
Conclusion: The impugned order was rightly quashed and set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the matter required to be sent back for fresh consideration with a reasoned order after hearing the parties.
Analysis: Since the dispute had not been decided on merits in a manner consistent with the earlier remand directions, and the petitioner had not received meaningful consideration of its submissions, a fresh adjudication was necessary. The appropriate course was to restore the proceedings to the authority for de novo determination after giving hearing to both sides and for passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh consideration and a reasoned decision after hearing the parties.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in part, with the challenged order set aside and the proceedings restored for fresh adjudication, while the merits of the dispute were left open.
Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicatory order that fails to consider the party's submissions, especially after an earlier remand requiring a reasoned decision, violates the requirement of fair hearing and cannot be sustained; the proper course is quashing and remand for de novo consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
