Consistency in remand directions under provisional assessment: later Tribunal order modified for omitting conditions set in earlier remand.

In finalisation of provisional assessment under the amended valuation regime, the Madras HC held that a later Tribunal remand had to remain consistent with an earlier remand order in the same assessee's case. The earlier order required the assessee to furnish relevant particulars and supporting certificates for verification by the original authority; the later order repeated the remand but omitted those conditions. Because the later order departed from the earlier directions already accepted as the basis of the dispute, it was inconsistent and could not stand in its existing form. The Tribunal's order was modified and the matter was remanded to the original authority in terms of the earlier directions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee's appeal by remanding the matter was inconsistent with the earlier order passed in the same assessee's case and therefore required modification.

Analysis: The appeal concerned finalisation of provisional assessment under the amended valuation regime. The earlier Tribunal order had remanded the matter with specific directions requiring the assessee to furnish relevant particulars and supporting certificates for verification by the original authority. In the present matter, the Tribunal again remanded the case, but without carrying forward the same qualifying directions. The Court held that once the earlier order had been accepted and formed the basis for the later decision, the subsequent order ought to have been in consonance with the earlier remand directions. Since the later order omitted those conditions, it was inconsistent with the earlier order and could not stand in its existing form.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was modified and the matter was remanded to the original authority in terms of the earlier remand directions; the Revenue's appeal was allowed.

---