Limited remand on tax relief cannot reopen settled entitlement; subordinate authority must confine itself to quantification.

Where an appellate authority has already accepted entitlement to set-off of entry tax and remands the matter only for quantification, the Assessing Officer must confine himself to computation and cannot reopen the substantive entitlement. A subordinate authority cannot travel beyond binding appellate directions or sit in appeal over the relief already granted in principle. An assessment order that re-decides settled entitlement instead of implementing the remand was held to be in excess of jurisdiction and legally unsustainable, and was set aside. The writ petition was allowed, with directions to comply with the appellate order only for quantifying the relief already recognised.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Assessing Officer, after remand, could travel beyond the appellate directions and decide the petitioner's entitlement to set-off of entry tax; (ii) whether the impugned assessment order was liable to be set aside for being in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to the binding appellate order.

Issue (i): Whether the Assessing Officer, after remand, could travel beyond the appellate directions and again decide the petitioner's entitlement to set-off of entry tax.

Analysis: The appellate order had already accepted the petitioner's eligibility for set-off under the relevant Government Orders and remanded the matter only for quantification of the entry tax paid. The remand, therefore, was confined to working out the amount due and did not reopen the substantive entitlement that had already been decided in the petitioner's favour. A subordinate authority could not sit in appeal over the appellate determination or re-examine the correctness of the relief already granted.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer could not exceed the limited scope of remand and had no authority to deny the set-off once the appellate authority had decided the issue in principle.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned assessment order was liable to be set aside for being in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to the binding appellate order.

Analysis: The impugned order disregarded the appellate directions by re-deciding the very entitlement that had been settled, instead of restricting itself to quantification. Such a course was inconsistent with judicial discipline and the binding effect of superior appellate orders on subordinate authorities. Since the proper function on remand was confined to computation and implementation, the order was legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned order was in excess of jurisdiction and was correctly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the Assessing Officer was directed to comply with the appellate order only to the extent of quantifying the relief already recognised.

Ratio Decidendi: When an appellate authority has conclusively decided entitlement to a tax relief and remands the matter only for quantification, the subordinate authority cannot reopen the merits of that entitlement and must confine itself to the limited scope of remand.

---