Court affirms Tribunal's remand order, rejects challenge on jurisdiction. Liquor stock exclusion upheld.

The Court upheld the remand order passed by the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, rejecting the petitioner's challenge on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and necessity. The Tribunal's decision to exclude the value of liquor stock from the turnover calculation was deemed appropriate, and the petitioner's arguments were found unconvincing. The Court emphasized the Tribunal's authority to remand cases under the broad powers granted by the relevant statute, dismissing the petitioner's contentions and ruling in favor of the Tribunal without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the correctness of the remand order passed by the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to remand the case.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the remand order passed by the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on the grounds that there was no case for remand based on the facts found by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to remand the case. The Commercial Tax Officer calculated the petitioner's total net turnover at Rs. 24,931-28, with a gross turnover of Rs. 85,088-02, deducting Rs. 60,156-74 as exempted turnover. The Tribunal found that the value of liquor stock on 1st October, 1957, should not have been included in the total turnover calculation and remanded the case for reconsideration. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged the Tribunal's correct view but argued against the necessity of the remand, contending that the turnover of liquor sales was already included in the petitioner's return. However, the Tribunal remanded the case as the Tax Officer and Deputy Commissioner based their calculations on the liquor stock value on 1st October, 1957, without considering sales post that date.

The petitioner was not prejudiced by the remand order as all contentions were accepted by the Tribunal, and the Tax Officer only needed to comply with the Tribunal's directions. The petitioner's argument that the Tribunal lacked the power to remand the case was dismissed. While no specific power to remand cases was conferred on Tribunals, the wide import of the expression "pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit" in section 22(4) of the Act allowed for the interpretation that remand orders could be included. The Court highlighted that a narrow construction of these words could prejudice taxpayers, and cited decisions from other High Courts supporting the Tribunal's authority to remand cases. Consequently, both of the petitioner's contentions were rejected, and the petition was dismissed without costs.

---