https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167857 The revisional authority could interfere because the appellate authority had ordered a remand contrary to the statutory bar under section 62(6)(a) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. However, restoring the reassessment straightaway was not proper, because the dealer had been denied an effective appellate hearing. The matter therefore had to go back to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) for fresh disposal on merits, with liberty to adduce additional evidence. The governing principle is that, once an improper remand is set aside, the party should ordinarily be given a substantive opportunity before the appellate forum rather than be sent back to the assessing authority. en-us Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2015 15:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167857 The revisional authority could interfere because the appellate authority had ordered a remand contrary to the statutory bar under section 62(6)(a) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. However, restoring the reassessment straightaway was not proper, because the dealer had been denied an effective appellate hearing. The matter therefore had to go back to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) for fresh disposal on merits, with liberty to adduce additional evidence. The governing principle is that, once an improper remand is set aside, the party should ordinarily be given a substantive opportunity before the appellate forum rather than be sent back to the assessing authority. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167857