Remand confined to factual re-examination does not warrant revisional interference where no substantial question of law arises.

A remand limited to further factual inquiry will not ordinarily justify revisional interference where the tribunal has not finally decided the legal controversy. The High Court noted that the Tax Appellate Tribunal only required re-examination of the nature of breakage charges, publicity charges, and lease transactions, including the relationship between wholesaler and retailer and the accounting treatment of the amounts. It also accepted that Section 5-E of the AP General Sales Tax Act, 1957 contemplates transfer of the right to use goods even without a specified period, so the Tribunal was not wrong in correcting the Revisional Authority's narrow view of lease transactions. No substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the Revisional Authority, and whether the remand order gave rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal had not finally determined the taxability controversy on merits but had found that the factual basis regarding the nature of the breakage charges, publicity charges, and lease transactions required further examination. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's direction was confined to re-examination of facts, particularly the relationship between the wholesaler and retailer and the manner in which the amounts were accounted for. In such circumstances, the remand could not be treated as an erroneous decision on a question of law. The Court also held that Section 5-E of the AP General Sales Tax Act, 1957 contemplates a transfer of right to use goods even without a specified period, and therefore the Tribunal was not wrong in correcting the Revisional Authority's narrow view on lease transactions. Since the Tribunal had not adjudicated any question of law finally and had only directed further factual inquiry, no interference was called for.

Conclusion: The remand order was upheld and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand confined to further factual inquiry, where the appellate tribunal has not finally adjudicated a question of law, does not furnish a ground for revisional interference.

---