2019 (12) TMI 58 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Remand of the matter - assessment of inter-state sales - only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner/Assessee is that the Tribunal erred in partly allowing the Appeal and partly remanding back to the First Appellate Authority instead of completely remanding the case back for holding fresh enquiry so that the issues could be decided afresh by the Appellate Authority - HELD THAT - There is considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Assessee. Therefore, the matter ought to have been remanded for passing denovo order by the First Appellate Authority. The matter stands restored to the concerned first appellate authority. Since, the proceedings were stayed by way of interim order of this Court and pendency of the writ petition for a long period i.e, from the year 2002, the First Appellate Authority is requested to pass orders denovo, within a period of six months from today - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in STA.135/01.
2. Contention regarding the remand order by the Tribunal.
3. Decision on whether the matter should have been remanded for a denovo order by the First Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in STA.135/01, which partly allowed the State's appeal and partly remanded the case. The Tribunal directed a detailed scrutiny of a turnover of &8377; 55,13,000/- related to transactions with the Pondicherry Branch Office and assessed a turnover of &8377; 25,00,000/- as inter-state sales, rejecting the claim of exemption under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal found errors in the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's findings and directed the assessing authority to reassess the turnovers based on specific directions given in previous cases.

2. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal should have completely remanded the case for a fresh inquiry instead of partly allowing the appeal and remanding it back to the First Appellate Authority. The petitioner argued for a denovo order to decide the issues afresh. The Revenue's counsel supported the Tribunal's order.

3. After hearing both parties, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention that the matter should have been remanded for a denovo order by the First Appellate Authority. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order in STA.135/01 and restoring the matter to the concerned first appellate authority. Due to the prolonged pendency of the case, the First Appellate Authority was directed to pass denovo orders within six months from the date of the judgment. The petitioners were instructed to appear before the First Appellate Authority on a specified date.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras found merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the remand order and directed for a fresh inquiry by the First Appellate Authority. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and provided specific instructions for the further proceedings, emphasizing the need for a denovo order within a specified timeframe.