Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellate authority could lawfully pass a second remand order under section 84(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, and whether the Tax Board was justified in quashing that remand and foreclosing further enquiry by the assessing authority.
Analysis: Section 84(7) expressly empowers the appellate authority, in an appeal against an assessment order, to set aside the assessment and direct the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after such further enquiry as may be directed. The provision contains no prohibition against a second remand where the first remand was not fully complied with and further enquiry remains necessary. The assessment involved a chequered factual history and questions about the real persons behind a suspected benami concern, which required proper enquiry. The assessing authority also had coercive powers to secure attendance and conduct effective enquiry, so the matter could not be closed merely because some difficulty had been experienced earlier.
Conclusion: The second remand order was valid in law, and the Tax Board was wrong in quashing it and stopping further enquiry.
Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded, the Tax Board's order was set aside, and the assessing authority was directed to complete the enquiry and pass fresh assessment orders in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly authorises the appellate authority to set aside an assessment and direct further enquiry, a second remand is not illegal merely because an earlier remand had already been made, if the circumstances justify continued enquiry.