1996 (4) TMI 469 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of the second remand order made by the appellate authority.
2. Reopening of assessment proceeding in respect of stock transfers.
3. Justification of remand orders by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Trade Tax Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a revision directed under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the impugned judgment and order dated 15th April, 1995, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal. The petitioner, a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes, challenged the assessment of stock transfers made to its Nagpur depot for the year 1985-86. The Assistant Commissioner had accepted most stock transfers but disputed one transfer to Nagpur due to the absence of a requisite form "F," imposing tax liability. The company appealed against this specific turnover only, not disputing the rest. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case to verify the disputed transfer and form "F," leading to subsequent appeals and remands. The legality of these remand orders was questioned by the petitioner.

The High Court analyzed the situation, emphasizing that the assessment becoming final on undisputed turnovers precluded reopening without specific statutory provisions being invoked. The court found that the assessing authority did not utilize the relevant sections for reopening the assessment, rendering the remand unjustified. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were criticized for directing the reopening of assessments that had attained finality, contrary to legal provisions. The court held that the second remand order was unwarranted and that the Tribunal failed to assess the tax liability based on existing evidence, leading to a directive for a fresh determination by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the impugned remand orders and directing the Tribunal to determine the tax liability afresh based on the existing record and observations made in the judgment. The petitioner was granted a certified copy of the order for submission to the Tribunal, with a deadline for further proceedings. The petition was allowed, highlighting the court's decision to overturn the remand orders and provide specific directions for the Tribunal's reconsideration of the tax liability issue.