Binding precedent ignored in tax adjustment dispute, so the matter was remitted for fresh Tribunal reconsideration.

A tax dispute concerning adjustment of 2% tax on iron and steel purchases from units holding eligibility certificates was not finally resolved on merits because the Tribunal had not considered binding Supreme Court authority in Usha Martin Industries and other relevant later decisions. The High Court held that, where the lower appellate authority omits consideration of controlling precedent on the tax issue, the proper course is fresh adjudication under the correct legal position. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to adjustment of 2% tax in respect of iron and steel purchased from units holding eligibility certificates, and whether the matter required remand because the Tribunal had not considered the binding Supreme Court precedent.

Analysis: The revisions arose from rejection of the claim for adjustment of tax on purchases made from exempted units. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeals without considering the Supreme Court decision in Usha Martin Industries, which was relevant to the controversy. In view of the later authorities also relied upon, the dispute could not be finally resolved without a fresh examination of the legal position by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The issue was not finally decided on merits and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court set aside the impugned orders and directed fresh adjudication by the Tribunal after considering the relevant Supreme Court and High Court decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the lower appellate authority has not considered binding precedent relevant to the tax issue, the proper course is remand for fresh decision after applying the correct legal position.

---