Statutory bar on remand requires fresh appellate disposal on merits, with opportunity to place additional evidence.

The revisional authority could interfere because the appellate authority had ordered a remand contrary to the statutory bar under section 62(6)(a) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. However, restoring the reassessment straightaway was not proper, because the dealer had been denied an effective appellate hearing. The matter therefore had to go back to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) for fresh disposal on merits, with liberty to adduce additional evidence. The governing principle is that, once an improper remand is set aside, the party should ordinarily be given a substantive opportunity before the appellate forum rather than be sent back to the assessing authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order was sustainable in so far as it set aside the appellate order and restored the reassessment, and whether the matter ought to have been remanded to the appellate authority for fresh disposal on merits with an opportunity to adduce further evidence.

Analysis: The revisional authority was justified in interfering because the appellate authority had acted contrary to the statutory bar on remand under section 62(6)(a) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. However, the proper course after setting aside that erroneous remand was not to restore the reassessment straightaway. Since the dealer had been deprived of an effective opportunity before the appellate forum, fairness required that the appeal be sent back to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits, with liberty to produce additional evidence if so desired.

Conclusion: The revisional order could not be sustained to the extent it finally restored the reassessment; the matter was required to be remanded to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication on merits, with opportunity to the dealer to place additional material.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate order is set aside for violation of the statutory prohibition against remand, the matter should ordinarily be restored to the appellate authority for decision on merits rather than sent back to the assessing authority, so that the party is not denied a substantive appellate opportunity.

---