Factual determination of disputed goods must be made by the Tribunal, not freshly examined in revision.

The High Court held that, in revision under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, it could not itself undertake a fresh factual enquiry into the identity of disputed goods. Because the Tribunal had not recorded a definite finding on whether the goods were wheel caps, hub-caps or stainless steel goods, and had not accepted either competing factual version, the proper course was to set aside the Tribunal's order. The matter was remitted so the Tribunal could determine the nature of the goods on the existing record and return a clear finding.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to record a definite finding on the nature of the disputed goods and in directing a split assessment instead of determining whether the goods were wheel caps hub-caps or stainless steel goods.

Analysis: The Tribunal had not returned a clear finding on the character of the goods and had also not accepted either of the competing factual versions. In revision under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, the Court could not itself undertake a fresh factual enquiry into the identity of the goods. In these circumstances, the appropriate course was to set aside the Tribunal's order and require it to determine the factual issue on the materials already on record.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a definite finding on the nature of the goods.

---