Remand for inquiry into firm dissolution restored; non-payment objection was not a new plea in revision.

The Financial Commissioner could not set aside the Deputy Commissioner's remand directing inquiry into the genuineness of the firm's alleged dissolution; the earlier view that no further inquiry was needed merely because dissolution had been intimated was held unsustainable, so the remand was restored. The objection that the appeals were not maintainable for non-payment of admitted tax could not be treated as a new plea raised for the first time in revision, because that issue had already been raised and considered at earlier stages. The references were answered against the assessees on the substantive issue, and the remand for inquiry into dissolution was preserved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Financial Commissioner was justified in setting aside the remand ordered by the Deputy Commissioner for inquiry into the genuineness of the plea that the firm had been dissolved. (ii) Whether the plea that the appeals were not maintainable for non-payment of admitted tax could be raised for the first time in revision.

Issue (i): Whether the Financial Commissioner was justified in setting aside the remand ordered by the Deputy Commissioner for inquiry into the genuineness of the plea that the firm had been dissolved.

Analysis: The question was answered by following the Court's earlier decision on an identical issue. The Court accepted that the Financial Commissioner proceeded on the footing that no further inquiry was necessary into dissolution merely because intimation of dissolution had been given. That approach was held to be unsustainable, and the remand directing detailed inquiry into the plea of dissolution was restored as the proper course.

Conclusion: The Financial Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's remand order on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea that the appeals were not maintainable for non-payment of admitted tax could be raised for the first time in revision.

Analysis: The premise underlying the question was found to be incorrect because the point of non-payment of admitted tax had already been raised and decided at the appellate stage, and had also been canvassed before the Deputy Commissioner. Since the issue had in fact been in controversy earlier, it was not a new plea raised for the first time in revision.

Conclusion: The question did not arise on the facts and was declined to be answered.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered against the assessees on the substantive issue, and the department succeeded in preserving the remand for inquiry into dissolution.

---