Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 510 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 510 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT - 2016 (333) E.L.T. 31 (Chhattisgarh) - Validity of Tribunal's order - Non-speaking order passed - Held that:- the rest of the order is the submission of the parties only. We are not persuaded to assume the jurisdiction of the Tribunal all over again contrary to Section 35G of the Act. Therefore, the order dated 1-8-2014 in its present form is held to be unsustainable as non-speaking and cryptic. It is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribuna .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

indering judicial review to even ascertain that a law of question was involved. - Decided in favour of appellant - Tax Case No. 6 of 2015 - Dated:- 19-11-2015 - Navin Sinha, CJ and P. Sam Koshy, JJ. Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.M.K. Menan, Advocate, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The duty to pass reasoned and speaking orders showing application of mind applies not only to administrative authorities but with equal force to quas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as also been invited to another order in Tax Case No. 17 of 2015 quoting an extract from Tax Case No. 48 of 2012 (Union of India v. M/s. Harshad Thermic Industries Private Ltd.) observing as follows : 10. Coming now to the facts of the case, we find that learned Member of the Tribunal did not advert to any of these well settled principles while passing the impugned order because (1) it did not mention the facts of the case (2) how the issue was decided by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court was relied on in support of its conclusion. These infirmities, in our opinion, renders the impugned order totally unsustainable in law and hence it deserves to be set aside. 3. The aforesaid error was again noticed in Tax Case No. 17 of 2015 and Tax Case No. 13 of 2015 (Commissioner, Central Excise Customs & Service Tax, Bilaspur v. M/s. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd.) which suffered from similar defect of a non-speaking order and had to be remanded by us to the Tribunal.

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version