TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondents had the jurisdiction at all to bring the transaction in question to tax. 2.Before me, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue mainly on the fact that the Appellate Order has been passed in a non-speaking fashion and without having considered the impact of Circular No.32/2004 dated 11.05.2004 and ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of United Shippers Ltd Vs CCE, Thane-II [2015 (37) S.T.R. 1043 (Tri.-Mumbai)], that were admittedly placed by the petitioner before the respondent in course of personal hearing held on 31.07.2018. 3.A query was put to the petitioner as to why it has chosen to deviate from the statutory appellate hierarchy that had been resorted to initially, as against the order-in-original, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ii) if there is unreasonableness in the action of the Statutory Authority; (iii) if perversity writs large in the action taken by the Authority; (iv) if the Authority lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue and (v) if there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. 7.In the present case, the impugned order is certainly cryptic. It does not discuss the legal issue raised by the petitioner with reference to documents on records, in as detailed a fashion as may have been appropriate. That apart, the petitioner is also factually correct in that, the case-law as well as Circular cited and relied upon have been omitted to be considered. The aforesaid finding is based upon appeal records that have been called for and verified.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12.In the present case, I am of the considered view that the threas-hold has not been achieved. No doubt, the Appellate Authority, being a quasi-judicial authority, has to pass a reasoned and speaking order, taking note of all arguments advanced, and materials submitted by the Assessee. 13. The flaw in the present impugned order is that it is rather nonspeaking and omits to consider the circular and case law cited. However, this is not, in my view, an error so grave so as to justify invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 14. The maintainability of a writ petition, particularly when the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy, has to be tested and determined on the anvil of whether the error is so egregious and ser....