1981 (1) TMI 242 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of bardana sales under the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Denial of concessional rate of tax on certain sales.
3. Jurisdiction of assessing authority post-remand in tax assessments.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the Commissioner's revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act regarding the taxability of bardana sales by a partnership firm under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer deemed these sales as inter-State sales, leading to a dispute with the assessee. The appellate authority initially upheld the taxability of bardana but remanded the case concerning concessional tax rate on other sales for further verification.

2. The appellate court's remand was specific to the concessional tax rate issue, not a complete reassessment. The Sales Tax Officer was directed to allow the assessee to prove the registration status of purchasing dealers for the sales in question. However, post-remand, the Sales Tax Officer rejected the assessee's contention on bardana sales tax liability, citing finality of the previous order. The Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, emphasizing the limitation on re-agitating settled issues post-remand.

3. The Additional Judge (Revisions) accepted the assessee's argument on bardana sales tax liability without considering the finality of the previous order. The High Court highlighted the Full Bench decision's relevance in distinguishing cases where assessments were set aside for fresh assessment versus cases like this where only a specific aspect was remanded. The Full Bench clarified that after a remand, the assessing authority's jurisdiction is limited to the remanded issue.

4. The High Court concluded that since the assessee did not challenge the previous order through revision, it attained finality, precluding re-agitation post-remand. The Sales Tax Officer and Assistant Commissioner's decisions aligning with this principle were deemed correct. The Additional Judge's contrary view was deemed erroneous in law. The High Court allowed the Commissioner's revision, emphasizing the importance of respecting finality in tax assessments and awarded costs to the Commissioner.