1995 (1) TMI 395 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Remand of the case by the Tribunal based on the judgment of the Income Tax Department for determining the tax liability of the revisionist for Assessment Years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75.

Analysis:

The judgment delivered by B.K. Singh, J. of the Allahabad High Court pertains to Sales Tax Revisions challenging the Tribunal's order dated 29th April, 1989. The Tribunal had remanded the case to the Assessing Authority to determine the tax liability of the revisionist based on the judgment of the Income Tax Department for the relevant assessment years. The revisionist contended that the remand was unjustified as the Tribunal had earlier directed the case to be decided on the available material without remand. The Department argued that the remand was necessary to establish whether the business was conducted by the revisionist firm or by its partners individually.

The history of the case reveals a series of appeals and remands. Initially, the Assessing Authority passed an order in 1977, which was subsequently appealed. The case went through multiple rounds of appeals, remands, and decisions by different authorities. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer for reassessment based on the judgment of the Income Tax Department regarding the nature of business transactions conducted by the revisionist firm or its partners. The Tribunal justified the remand to ensure justice by considering the findings of the Income Tax Authority and a Handwriting Expert.

The judgment delves into the procedural aspects of remand in appellate proceedings. It highlights that remand is permissible when a retrial is deemed necessary after the decree is reversed in appeal, and specific issues need to be decided. However, remand should be avoided in cases where there has been a real trial, and insufficiency of evidence alone is not a valid ground for remand. The judgment emphasizes that successive remands serve no useful purpose, especially when the case has been previously directed to be decided on merit based on available evidence.

Ultimately, the Court held that the remand order by the Tribunal was legally flawed and set it aside. The Tribunal was directed to decide the Second Appeals itself and, if necessary, request the Department to provide the final decision of the Income Tax Authority for consideration. The judgment concluded by allowing the revision and providing guidance for the disposal of the Second Appeals in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues surrounding the remand of the case based on the judgment of the Income Tax Department, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of available evidence and avoiding successive remands for the effective resolution of legal disputes.