2012 (10) TMI 965 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Inter state sale - remand back orders by tribunal - Held that - The revisionist is engaged in the sale and purchase of de-menthalised oil and allied agro product. During the survey, photocopies of few loose papers were recovered, specially regarding the purchase of 100 kg. de-menthalised oil from Dinesh Matti and Shivkumar Kothi and the same are not found clear. For the inter-State sale, a few form F were found not genuine. So, a fresh examination and verification of these facts/documents is required. In the instant case, when the facts are not clear and documents seized at the time of survey need verification, then there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, who has just remanded the matter back to the assessing officer, to re-examine the issue and pass afresh order. No question of law emerges from the impugned order.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeals filed under section 57 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 against a common judgment and order dated June 29, 2012 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow for various assessment years.

Analysis:
The case involved multiple appeals filed under section 57 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 against a common judgment and order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The revisionist, a registered dealer, was engaged in the sale and purchase of dementhalised oil and allied agro products. A survey conducted at the business premises resulted in the seizure of various documents, leading to an assessment order by the assessing officer. The first appellate authority set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer. Subsequently, the revisionist appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the order of the first appellate authority, directing a fresh assessment. Dissatisfied with this decision, the revisionist filed revisions before the High Court.

The counsel for the revisionist argued that all facts were available before the Tribunal, questioning the need for remand. Citing legal precedents, the counsel emphasized that remand orders should only be made for strong reasons when the authority cannot dispose of the matter on merits. The counsel referred to cases where remand orders were set aside, urging the court to decide the matter on merits. On the other hand, the standing counsel justified the Tribunal's decision, highlighting discrepancies in the purchases made by the revisionist from various firms.

After considering the arguments and examining the material on record, the High Court observed that certain facts and documents, especially related to purchases and inter-State sales, required further verification. The court noted the necessity for a fresh examination of these facts and documents. Referring to legal precedents, the court emphasized that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. In this case, where facts were unclear and documents needed verification, the court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for re-examination.

Ultimately, the High Court sustained the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, dismissing all revisions. The court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable in the circumstances of the case and highlighted that no question of law emerged from the order. Consequently, the revisions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.