Limitation under sales tax reassessment runs from the Tribunal's merged order, and partial remand is valid for disputed turnover items.

Where an appellate remand order merged in the Tribunal's order, limitation for reassessment under section 24-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ran from the date of the Tribunal's order, not from the earlier date when the first appellate order was received by the assessing authority. On that basis, the reassessment was within time. The Tribunal was also entitled to confine remand to only those turnover items requiring fresh factual enquiry, while sustaining findings on the remaining items where the evidence already showed that stock transfer treatment was not proved. The Tribunal's order was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment order was barred by limitation under section 24-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 after the appellate remand order merged in the Tribunal's order. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding only part of the disputed turnover for fresh enquiry while finally deciding the remainder.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment order was barred by limitation under section 24-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 after the appellate remand order merged in the Tribunal's order.

Analysis: The period under section 24-A was held to run from the date on which the Tribunal upheld the remand order, because the first appellate order had merged in the Tribunal's order. The reassessment made within three years from that date was therefore within time, and the earlier date on which the first appellate order was received by the assessing authority was not the governing date for limitation.

Conclusion: The reassessment order was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding only part of the disputed turnover for fresh enquiry while finally deciding the remainder.

Analysis: The Tribunal separately examined the turnover relating to branch-office transfers and the turnover relating to places where no branch offices existed. For the first category, the record had not been properly correlated with the transactions, so remand was warranted. For the second category, the evidence showed that the transactions were not supported as stock transfers and the finding against the assessee was sustained, so no remand was necessary.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in remanding only the part of the turnover that required fresh enquiry.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions failed on both the limitation plea and the challenge to the partial remand, leaving the Tribunal's order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate remand order merges in the Tribunal's order, limitation for reassessment under section 24-A runs from the Tribunal's order, and a remand may validly be confined to the turnover items that require fresh factual enquiry.

---