Stock transfer versus inter-State sale dispute turned on existing material, with remand ordered for fresh appellate determination.

Movement of Indian-made foreign liquor to depots outside Uttar Pradesh had to be assessed on the existing material to determine whether it was a stock transfer or an inter-State sale. The assessing authority rejected stock transfer on facts showing movement pursuant to prior orders, but the first appellate authority failed to give a conclusive finding and remanded the matter without properly examining the record. The Tribunal wrongly assumed that stock transfer had been accepted and allowed the appeals on that mistaken premise. The common order was set aside in part, and the first appellate authority was required to decide the appeals afresh on the existing material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer's movement of Indian-made foreign liquor to depots outside Uttar Pradesh was a stock transfer or inter-State sale, and whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the second appeals on the basis of an assumed finding by the first appellate authority.

Analysis: The assessing authority had rejected the claim of stock transfer on the basis of material indicating movement of goods pursuant to prior orders. The first appellate authority did not return a conclusive finding on the controversy and instead remanded the matter without examining the rival stands or the material on record. The Tribunal proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the first appellate authority had accepted stock transfer, and allowed the appeals on that mistaken premise. The proper course was for the first appellate authority to decide the appeals afresh on the existing record, since the issue turned on inference from already available materials and the appellate authority's powers were coextensive with those of the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's view accepting the declared stock transfer was rejected. The matter was directed to be reconsidered by the first appellate authority afresh in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were allowed in part and the Tribunal's common order was set aside, with the first appellate authority required to decide the appeals afresh on the existing material.

---