<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (3) TMI 577 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158682</link>
    <description>A quasi-judicial appellate authority must record and communicate reasons for its decision, because reasoned orders are an essential part of fair procedure, guard against arbitrariness, and permit effective judicial review. An order that merely states a conclusion without addressing the grounds raised in appeal is a non-speaking order and violates natural justice. Here, the Tribunal failed to deal with the appellate points and gave no reasons for sustaining the penalty, so the order was vulnerable to judicial review. The writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal&#039;s order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after hearing the party and passing a speaking order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:10:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 577 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158682</link>
      <description>A quasi-judicial appellate authority must record and communicate reasons for its decision, because reasoned orders are an essential part of fair procedure, guard against arbitrariness, and permit effective judicial review. An order that merely states a conclusion without addressing the grounds raised in appeal is a non-speaking order and violates natural justice. Here, the Tribunal failed to deal with the appellate points and gave no reasons for sustaining the penalty, so the order was vulnerable to judicial review. The writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal&#039;s order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after hearing the party and passing a speaking order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>