1995 (7) TMI 408 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the judgment and order of Trade Tax Tribunal, Allahabad Bench-II, remanding assessment proceedings due to lack of local inspection and evaluation of damage caused by flood and seepage in the godown. Tribunal's decision to remand the proceedings after eight years, businessman's need for quick judicial decisions, unnecessary remand order, submission of necessary documents by the assessee, compensation received from General Insurance Co., unjustified remand order by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the Trade Tax Tribunal's decision to remand assessment proceedings due to the assessing authority's failure to conduct a local inspection and evaluate the damage caused by flood and seepage in the godown. The Tribunal remanded the proceedings after eight years, which was deemed unnecessary by the counsel for the assessee. The assessing authority's delay in evaluating the damage post-flood in the year 1987 was highlighted, emphasizing the quick deterioration of plywood stored in a closed godown due to water exposure. The Tribunal's directive for a local inspection after such a long delay was criticized as it would be futile and further delay the assessment process for the year 1987-88.

The judgment references a previous case where the need for quick judicial decisions in business matters was emphasized to allow businessmen to make informed financial decisions promptly. The Tribunal's tendency to avoid deep analysis and opt for unnecessary remands was criticized. In the present case, the Tribunal's decision to remand the proceedings despite the submission of necessary documents by the assessee, including evidence of flood damage and compensation received from the Insurance Company, was deemed unjustified. The first appellate authority's acceptance of the disclosed turnover based on cogent reasons was highlighted, questioning the Tribunal's failure to provide a valid reason for remanding the case.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and directing them to make a fresh decision based on the available material on record. The Court stressed the need for an expeditious resolution, mandating the Tribunal to dispose of the second appeal within three months. The judgment concluded with the provision for a certified copy of the order to be provided promptly upon payment of charges, thereby allowing the petition.