Matter not to be remanded back when all the materials on record are available

[CA Bimal Jain]

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/S JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, U.P. - 2022 (12) TMI 1294 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT set aside the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) remanding the matter to the Assessing officer. Held that, the Tribunal was incorrect in remanding back the matter, when all the material was before it thus, it should have dealt with each of the material and decided the same.

Facts:

M/s Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited (“the Revisionist”) is a dealer engaged in the manufacturing of reaction initiators, reaction accelerators, and catalyst preparation. During the Assessment Year 2014-15, a survey was made by the Special Investigation Branch (“the SIB”) and a report was forwarded to the Assessing Authority (“A.A.”) who made assessment on the basis of the best judgement assessment and a demand of INR 60,10,077/- under the Central Sales Act, 1956 was made from the Revisionist.

The order of the A.A. was challenged before the first appellate authority, which vide order dated November 30, 2018 while allowing the appeal remanded back the matter to A.A. with certain directions to pass fresh order.

Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) was issued to the Revisionist wherein, the A.A. made an assessment and raised a demand of INR 3,07,89,620/- against the Revisionist and capital goods credit was denied on ground that Revisionist was not a manufacturer. This order was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed before the Tribunal in which the matter was remanded back to the A.A. and thus, was dismissed vide order dated August 8, 2022 (“the Impugned Order”). Hence, this revision has been filed.

Issue:

Whether the Tribunal has erred in remanding back the matter to the A.A. when all the materials for deciding the case were available on record?

Held:

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/S JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, U.P. - 2022 (12) TMI 1294 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held as under:

• Stated that, the principle envisaged under Rule 23, 23A, 24 and 25 of Order 41 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is of great relevance and has to be considered by the all the authorities, Tribunals and courts while exercising the power of remand.
• Noted that, the Tribunal did not record any finding to the effect that the A.A. has failed to deal any issue or has not considered the same which was essential for the right decision of the suit. Further, the Tribunal had only required the Revisionist to place certain documents on the basis of which the A.A. was to arrive at the finding.
• Further noted that, the documents which were required to be considered by the Tribunal were already on record which the Tribunal being the last fact finding authority has not considered and only to escape from deciding the matter on merits had taken a shortcut and remanded back the matter to the A.A.
• Stated that, the Tribunal is also not adhering to Rule 63(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 (“U.P. VAT Rules”) by not framing the point of determination and adjudicating the same.
• Held that, the Tribunal was incorrect in remanding back the matter to the A.A. when all the material was before it and it should have dealt with each of the material and decided the same.
• Set aside the Impugned Order and remitted back the matter to decide both the appeals of the Revisionist in accordance with law on the material available on record.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])