The petitioner challenged an adjudication order confirming tax, interest and penalty on the ground that it was non-speaking and passed without granting effective opportunity of hearing. The factual background showed that though a detailed reply was filed, the impugned order merely reproduced conclusions without any discussion or reasoning.

The Court held that an adjudication order must disclose application of mind and contain reasons supporting the conclusions arrived at. Absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable in law. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.