TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (3) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....V/77 and 130-V/77 as the assessee did not file any reference application under section 44(1) on this point and the case was remanded only for the purpose of reconsideration of penalty under section 43(1)?" 2. The year of assessment is from October 20, 1971 to November 5, 1972. The assessee who is a forest contractor purchased bamboos from the Forest Department paying purchase tax and thereafter sold the same to third parties after converting bamboos into suitable sizes and shapes. The assessing officer held that the sales were liable to sales tax. Penalty was imposed under section 43(1) of the Act and rule 69-A of the Rules. In first appeal, the turnover was enhanced and penalty under section 43(1) was also enhanced. The assessee filed se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has given rise to the present reference. 3.. Two things are beyond controversy. In the earlier second appeal, the Tribunal went into the question whether the sale of bamboo by the assessee after purchasing the same from the Forest Department paying purchase tax was subjected to manufacturing process and became a different commercial commodity and held that it did become a different commercial commodity thereby inviting liability for payment of sales tax. It is also not disputed that on this order wherein on the question of penalty remand was effected, the assessee did not approach the Tribunal to refer any question of law to the High Court. So far as the Tribunal and the lower authorities are concerned, the matter thereby became concluded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he then was) speaking for the Division Bench held that the order of remand in regard to a disputed aspect had remained unchallenged, subsequent proceedings of the Income-tax Officer could only be in obedience of that order which is res judicata so far as the assessee is concerned in regard to the aspect decided. Another decision is that of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in S.P. Gramophone Company v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal [1986] 160 ITR 417, wherein it was held that if the correctness of the remand order is not challenged through proper proceedings, it should not be open to review when the matter comes again before that authority in appeal or revision against the order passed by the authorities below in accordance with the remand....