1987 (7) TMI 561 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of remanding a case for fresh assessment by the Sales Tax Tribunal.

The judgment delivered by the High Court pertains to a sales tax revision under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, challenging the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal remanding the case for a fresh assessment. The primary issue raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the assessment and directing the assessing authority to conduct a further inquiry and pass a fresh assessment order. The case involved an assessee running a brick kiln, where discrepancies were found in the assessment of turnover for the year 1982-83. The Sales Tax Officer had rejected the account books and assessed tax based on an estimated turnover, which was disputed by the assessee. The Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax (Judicial), had accepted the book version of the assessee on appeal, leading to further appeal by the Revenue before the Sales Tax Tribunal.

The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, which empowers the Sales Tax Tribunal to set aside an order and direct a fresh assessment after conducting further inquiry as necessary. It emphasized that the power of remand should be exercised judiciously, based on sound judicial principles, and sparingly. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, can remand a case if it deems further investigation essential for the interest of justice. The judgment underscored that the Tribunal's discretion to remand a case should be in line with the evidentiary record and to rectify errors based on insufficient material.

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for fresh assessment, noting that the lower authorities' orders were erroneous and lacked sufficient material. It affirmed that the Tribunal's order was balanced and favorable to the assessee, providing an opportunity for a full defense during the fresh assessment. The judgment concluded by dismissing the revision, finding no legal basis to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, and emphasizing the absence of any illegality in the remand order.