2023 (9) TMI 800 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of remanding the case on the issue which had already attains finality after the order of the first appellate authority passed in appeal filed against the provisional assessment order - HELD THAT - On perusal of the aforesaid observation made in provisional assessment order it transpires that query was put to the revisionist that at the time of survey dated 13.5.2015 calcium octet was not found at his business premises but on production of stock register entries of 1710 kgs of calcium octet were mentioned however while issuing show cause notice for provisional assessment the commodities has wrongly been mentioned but the assessing authority has not discussed anything about the fact that at the time of survey stock of some specific chemical was not found though the same has been mentioned in the stock register. Further the assessing authority observed that no adverse inference should be drawn against the revisionist. The assessing authority has neither assigned any reason nor any finding has been recorded for not drawing any adverse inference against the revisionist. The first appellate authority has observed that at the time of survey dated 3.5.2015 stock of calcium octet was not found but same was available in the factory. The said fact is accepted by the Assessing Authority. However neither anything was brought on record to support the said finding nor any discussion had been made in the provisional assessment order to clarify the justification given by the assessee as such the findings recorded by the first appellate authority in this respect is perverse - Further the observation of the 1st appellate authority that the chemical was available in the factory is without any material on record or discussion therefore has no leg to stand. Once neither any discussion nor any finding has been recorded by any of the authority about shortcomings of chemical found at the time of survey dated 13.5.2015 it will be incorrect on the part of the revisionist to argue and suggest that once on the provisional assessment order the finding has been recorded in favour of the revisionist which was confirmed by the first appellate authority the matter ought not to have remanded the matter for redetermination of the said fact. Thus no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order. The revision is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the legality of remanding a case by the Tribunal which had already attained finality after the order of the first appellate authority in appeal against the provisional assessment order.

Details of the judgment:

Issue (A): Legality of remanding the case after finality of first appellate authority's order:
The revisionist, a proprietorship firm in the chemical manufacturing and sale business, challenged the remand of the case by the Tribunal despite the provisional assessment order not drawing adverse inferences against them for discrepancies found during a survey. The first appellate authority accepted the revisionist's version without proper discussion or supporting evidence. The Court noted that the assessing authority failed to record findings on the discrepancies found during the survey, leading to a lack of justification for not drawing adverse inferences. The Tribunal's remand was deemed justified due to the absence of proper findings or decisions in favor of the revisionist regarding the discrepancies found during the survey.

Key points:
- Survey conducted on business premises in 2015 led to provisional assessment proceedings.
- Discrepancies in stock register noted during the survey were not properly addressed in the provisional assessment order.
- First appellate authority accepted revisionist's version without adequate evidence or discussion.
- Lack of findings or decisions supporting revisionist's claims regarding discrepancies found during the survey.
- Tribunal's remand deemed justified due to absence of proper justification for not drawing adverse inferences against the revisionist.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the revision, upholding the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for redetermination of discrepancies found during the survey. The questions of law were answered accordingly.