https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356235 The Tribunal's order was set aside because it failed to consider a substantive ground specifically raised in second appeal, namely that the transaction was not taxable in Uttar Pradesh as the lease deed was executed outside the State. The High Court held that this contention required a merits-based decision, while the remaining issues involved factual inquiries better left to the Tribunal as final fact-finding authority. The proper course was therefore to remit the appeals for fresh adjudication, with the parties free to press all relevant legal contentions before the Tribunal. The revisions succeeded only to the extent of securing remand. en-us Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Sep 2018 12:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356235 The Tribunal's order was set aside because it failed to consider a substantive ground specifically raised in second appeal, namely that the transaction was not taxable in Uttar Pradesh as the lease deed was executed outside the State. The High Court held that this contention required a merits-based decision, while the remaining issues involved factual inquiries better left to the Tribunal as final fact-finding authority. The proper course was therefore to remit the appeals for fresh adjudication, with the parties free to press all relevant legal contentions before the Tribunal. The revisions succeeded only to the extent of securing remand. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356235