Revisional remand power upheld where fuller inquiry was needed into whether the assessee was a purchasing agent or commission agent.

The revisional authority could lawfully remand the assessment where the appellate authority had not examined the disputed turnover from the correct legal and factual angle, and section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act did not curtail that power. Because a fuller inquiry was necessary to determine whether the assessee acted as a purchasing agent or sold goods from his own stock, remand was proper. The authority could also direct inquiry into whether the assessee acted as a commission agent for the selling dealers, since that issue formed part of the same controversy and was relevant to the claimed exemption. Both questions were answered against the assessee and the remand order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revisional authority was justified in remanding the cases for fresh assessment; (ii) whether, after remand, the revisional authority could direct inquiry into the department's plea that the assessee acted as a commission agent for the selling dealers.

Issue (i): whether the revisional authority was justified in remanding the cases for fresh assessment.

Analysis: The relevant question was whether the assessee had sold goods as a purchasing agent after buying them from the market or had supplied them from his own stock as an outright seller. The earlier appellate order had not examined the matter from that perspective. The revisional authority was entitled either to make the inquiry itself or to remand the matter, and section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act did not restrict the power to remand. Since a detailed and prolonged inquiry was necessary, remand was proper.

Conclusion: The remand was justified and within jurisdiction, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether, after remand, the revisional authority could direct inquiry into the department's plea that the assessee acted as a commission agent for the selling dealers.

Analysis: The question before the revisional authority was whether the assessee acted as a purchasing agent in relation to the disputed turnover. The further inquiry whether he also acted as a commission agent for the selling dealers was only another aspect of the same controversy, because if he so acted he could not claim exemption as a purchasing agent. The direction to examine that aspect therefore did not introduce a wholly new question.

Conclusion: The revisional authority was competent to direct inquiry into that aspect, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered against the assessee and the remand order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the revisional authority finds that the appellate authority has not examined the matter from the correct legal and factual angle, it may remand the case for a fuller inquiry, and it may direct examination of all aspects that are integral to the same disputed turnover.

---