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 remand should have been made to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the petitioner's contention that no interest was payable, instead of to the Commissioner for consideration of remission under Section 25(4) of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the petitioner's main contention had not been properly considered and that the matter required reconsideration. Since the controversy before the first appellate authority concerned the very liability to interest, the appropriate course was to remit the matter to that authority for fresh adjudication of that contention. A remand to the Commissioner only for exercise of remission power under Section 25(4) did not address the primary issue that had been raised and left undecided.
Conclusion: The remand was modified and the matter was directed to be sent back to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Appellate Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The petition was allowed to that extent and the merits of the interest liability were left open.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the primary grievance is non-consideration of the substantive liability to interest, remand must be made to the authority that decided that issue, and not to a different authority empowered only to consider remission.