Jurisdictional remand compliance requires a tribunal to decide the specific issue directed, or its order may be set aside.

A tribunal receiving a remand on a specific jurisdictional issue must decide that issue directly and cannot omit the core question. Here, the High Court had required a categorical finding on whether notice under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was issued only after sanction by the Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal noted the sanction but did not determine whether a subsequent notice was actually issued or examine the legal effect of any departure from that sequence. Because the remand direction was not complied with, the appellate order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication of the jurisdictional validity of the reassessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal failed to decide the issue remanded by the High Court as to whether notice under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was issued after the sanction of the Additional Commissioner, and whether non-compliance with that direction warranted setting aside the Tribunal's order and remand of the matter.

Analysis: The matter had earlier been remitted to the Tribunal to record a categorical finding on the foundational jurisdictional question whether any notice under section 21 was issued after the Additional Commissioner granted sanction. The Tribunal noted the grant of sanction but did not determine whether a subsequent notice was in fact issued, nor did it examine the legal effect of issuing notice before sanction or of not issuing any notice after sanction. The failure to decide the precise issue directed by the High Court meant that the jurisdictional validity of the reassessment proceedings remained unresolved. A tribunal receiving a remand direction is bound to decide the referred issue directly and cannot omit the core question.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was liable to be set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the specified issue. The revision succeeded to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The decision leaves the jurisdictional question under section 21 open for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal, while setting aside the impugned appellate order for failure to comply with the earlier remand directions.

Ratio Decidendi: When a superior court remands a matter on a specific jurisdictional issue, the subordinate tribunal must return a categorical finding on that issue, and failure to do so justifies setting aside the order and remand.

---