https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448330 A revisional court may interfere with an order issuing process where the complaint and order do not show proper application of mind to the ingredients of the alleged offence. Here, the order taking cognizance under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 was found to be mechanical because it did not disclose conscious satisfaction on the statutory threshold. The revisional interference was therefore treated as directed against an erroneous summoning order, not as an impermissible final discharge. The proper course was remand to the trial court for fresh consideration and cognizance in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 16 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:42:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448330 A revisional court may interfere with an order issuing process where the complaint and order do not show proper application of mind to the ingredients of the alleged offence. Here, the order taking cognizance under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 was found to be mechanical because it did not disclose conscious satisfaction on the statutory threshold. The revisional interference was therefore treated as directed against an erroneous summoning order, not as an impermissible final discharge. The proper course was remand to the trial court for fresh consideration and cognizance in accordance with law. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 16 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448330