2015 (1) TMI 997 - HC - Service Tax

Validity of Tribunal's order - Whether the impugned judgment and order contains any findings and conclusions on the issue raised by the appellant or not - Held that - Tribunal while rendering judgment, should have recorded the issues involved in the matter, then ought to have discussed the same and then come to conclusion. It appears that the learned Tribunal has referred some judgments, but whether the same are applicable or not to the case was not discussed. Meaning thereby, the learned Tribunal has not put a right question to itself. Learned counsel for the respondent agrees that the impugned judgment is not having clarity. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Lack of findings and conclusions in the impugned judgment

The judgment in question revolves around the issue of whether the impugned judgment and order contain any findings and conclusions on the issue raised by the appellant. The appellant's counsel argues that, except for a conclusion in paragraph 5 of the judgment, no findings or conclusions were provided, leading to a mechanical dismissal of the appeal. Both counsels agree that the impugned judgment lacks clarity and does not adequately address the issues involved.

Analysis:

The High Court, comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice Sanjay Kumar, admitted the appeal based on the crucial question of the presence of findings and conclusions in the impugned judgment. The appellant's counsel, Shri Jalakam Satyanarayana, highlighted the deficiency in the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that apart from a single conclusion in paragraph 5, no substantive findings or conclusions were presented. The Court acknowledged the validity of the appellant's argument, indicating that the submission carries weight.

Upon reviewing the impugned judgment and order, the Court concurred with the appellant's counsel that there was indeed a lack of findings and conclusions, except for the conclusion in paragraph 5. The respondent's counsel also acknowledged this deficiency, admitting that the impugned judgment lacked clarity. The Court emphasized the necessity for a comprehensive analysis of the issues involved, followed by a detailed discussion and a well-reasoned conclusion.

The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of the conclusion provided in the impugned judgment, deeming it insufficient. It criticized the Tribunal for not adequately addressing the issues, failing to discuss the applicability of referenced judgments, and not framing the right questions. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh, emphasizing the importance of providing reasons and findings while framing the issues. The Tribunal was instructed to ensure a thorough hearing within a stipulated period of three months from the date of communication of the order.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive and well-reasoned approach in rendering judgments. The decision to set aside the judgment underscored the importance of clarity, thorough analysis, and proper consideration of the issues involved in legal proceedings.