Tribunal remand power construed broadly to include remand where needed to give effect to its own findings.

The Tribunal's power to pass such orders as it thinks fit was construed broadly enough to include an order of remand, especially where remand is needed to give effect to the Tribunal's own finding and a narrow reading would hinder justice. On the stock-value issue, the Tribunal held that liquor stock found in the shop could not be included in turnover and remitted the matter only for a fresh examination of sales during the relevant period. The remand was upheld because it followed the Tribunal's conclusion and no prejudice to the assessee was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the assessment when it had accepted the assessee's main contention on the treatment of stock value; (ii) whether the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Act to pass an order of remand.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the assessment when it had accepted the assessee's main contention on the treatment of stock value.

Analysis: The Tribunal had held that the value of liquor stock found in the shop on 1 October 1957 could not be included in computing the turnover, and therefore directed a fresh examination limited to sales made during the relevant period. The earlier authorities had proceeded on an incorrect basis, and the remand was made only so that the Commercial Tax Officer could give effect to the Tribunal's own finding. The petitioner was not shown to have suffered any prejudice from the direction.

Conclusion: The remand was justified and did not warrant interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Act to pass an order of remand.

Analysis: The power was traced to the language empowering the Tribunal to pass such orders as it thinks fit after hearing the parties. That expression was treated as wide enough to include an order of remand. A narrow reading was rejected because it could defeat the interest of justice in suitable cases. Support was also drawn from decisions interpreting corresponding provisions in sales tax legislation.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to remand the case.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the remand order failed on both grounds, and the revision petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory power of an appellate tribunal to pass such orders as it thinks fit is of sufficient width to include remand, and a remand order made to give effect to the tribunal's own findings will not be interfered with absent prejudice.

---