Remand in second appeal was justified where scrutiny of the original bill was needed to resolve a factual dispute.

Where the Board of Revenue accepted a photostat copy of the original bill and found that scrutiny of the original document was necessary, it could either decide the second appeal itself after examining that bill or, because the dispute involved a factual question, remand the matter to the authority below. The High Court held that remand was proper in these circumstances and answered the referred question in the affirmative, finding the remand necessary and warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the remand of the case by the Board of Revenue was necessary and warranted.

Analysis: The Board of Revenue had accepted a photostat copy of the original bill and considered that the matter required reconsideration after scrutiny of the original document. The Court held that, in such circumstances, the Board was entitled either to decide the matter itself in second appeal after examining the original bill or, since the matter involved a factual question, to remand it to the authority below.

Conclusion: The remand was necessary and warranted. The answer to the referred question was therefore in the affirmative.

---