Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
The Appellate Tribunal held that an adjudicating authority cannot sustain directions issued in a cryptic order that merely reproduces rival submissions without findings on facts or law. Because the impugned order gave no reasons for allowing the application and did not show judicial application of mind, it was treated as a non-speaking order incapable of legal sustenance. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to hear both parties and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
The Appellate Tribunal held that an adjudicating authority cannot sustain directions issued in a cryptic order that merely reproduces rival submissions without findings on facts or law. Because the impugned order gave no reasons for allowing the application and did not show judicial application of mind, it was treated as a non-speaking order incapable of legal sustenance. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to hear both parties and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
