Non-consideration of reply and supporting material can invalidate a demand order, requiring fresh speaking adjudication.

An adjudicatory demand order cannot be sustained where the noticee's reply and supporting documents are not considered. The High Court noted that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the ITC restriction provisions was not pressed, and the surviving dispute concerned non-consideration of the petitioner's response to the show-cause notice. On that basis, it set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication by the competent authority, with directions to examine the objections and material afresh and pass a speaking, reasoned order after due consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned demand order was liable to be set aside for non-consideration of the petitioner's reply and supporting documents, with a direction for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Analysis: The petitioner did not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of the ITC restriction provisions. The controversy that survived concerned the demand order passed after issuance of the show-cause notice, where the petitioner's reply and documents were stated to have remained unconsidered. In these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and direct the competent authority to examine the objections and material afresh, and to pass a speaking and reasoned order after due consideration of the response to the notice within the time granted.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, which is in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicatory demand order cannot be sustained where the reply and supporting material of the noticee have not been considered, and the matter must be decided afresh by a speaking and reasoned order after due consideration.

---