1995 (12) TMI 354 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rejects Tribunal's remand order, rules in favor of applicant-assessee.

Auto Sales (Bombay) Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP

The Court found that the Tribunal was unjustified in remanding the case for fresh assessment under its inherent power, stating that the proper course ... - Issues:- Justification of remanding the case for fresh assessment under section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.Analysis:The case involved a registered dealer under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, who was assessed to tax for the financial year 1969-70. After a Flying Squad visit, the assessment was reopened under section 19(1) of the Act, resulting in additional tax and penalty. The applicant challenged the jurisdiction of the assessing authority, arguing that the order under section 19(1) was improper when the notice was issued under section 18(4)(a). The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing the different nature of the two sections and the need for proper notice to enable the assessee to defend. The Tribunal quashed the assessment but remanded the case for fresh assessment, leading to the applicant's challenge of the remand order.The Court considered the powers under section 19(1) for reopening assessments and section 18(4)(a) for best judgment assessments, noting their distinct purposes and fields of operation. It emphasized the requirement for acts to be performed in the prescribed manner. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted the importance of proper procedure in legal matters and the need for confidence in the judiciary. The Court rephrased the question of law to focus on the justification of remanding the case under section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.Ultimately, the Court found that the Tribunal was not justified in remanding the case for fresh assessment under its inherent power, as the proper exercise would have been to annul the assessment. By analyzing sections 19 and 19-A of the Act, the Court concluded that the remand order was not proper or permissible under the law. Consequently, the Court answered the reframed question in the negative, favoring the applicant-assessee and ruling against the nonapplicant/department. The reference application was answered without costs, and the order was to be sent to the Tribunal as per legal requirements.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the justification of remanding a case for fresh assessment under specific sections of the law, emphasizing procedural correctness and adherence to legal principles.