Karnataka High Court
C. Govindaswamy vs State Of Mysore on 9 August, 1962
Equivalent citations: [1963]14STC65(KAR)
Author: K.S. Hegde
Bench: K.S. Hegde
ORDER Hegde, J.
1. In this revision petition under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, the petitioner challengers the correctness of the remand order passed by the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Case No. S.T.A. 208 of 1960-61, on two grounds, viz., (i) that on the facts found by the Tribunal there was no case for remand; and (ii) the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to remand the case.
2. The Commercial Tax Officer computed the total net turnover of the petitioner at Rs. 24,931-28. Gross turnover was computed at Rs. 85,088-02. Out of that he deducted Rs. 60,156-74 as turnover covered by exemptions. In arriving at the gross turnover of Rs. 85,088-02, he took into consideration the value of liquor that was in the shop on 1st October, 1957, and under that held he included a sum of Rs. 19,431-28. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes confirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. But the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the value of liquor stock that was in the shop on 1st October, 1957, could not have been taken into consideration in computing the total turnover. Therefore, it remanded the case to the Commercial Tax Officer directing him to take into consideration only the turnover relating to sales of liquor which was in stock on 1st October, 1957, but sold during the period 1st October, 1957, to 31st March, 1958.
3. Sri S. P. Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute that the view taken by the Tribunal is the correct view. But, his contention is that there was no need to remand the case, as it was not the case of the Commercial Tax Officer that any portion of the turnover relating to sales of liquor between 1st October, 1957, and 31st March, 1958, had not been included in the return submitted by the petitioner. But this contention ignores the fact that the Commercial Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner proceeded on the basis that what had to be taken into consideration in computing the total turnover is the value of the stock held by the petitioner on 1st October, 1957. Because of that view there was no need for them to go into the question, whether the price of liquor sold after 1st October, 1957, had be included in the return or not. It is for that reason the Tribunal remanded the case.
4. Further, the petitioner has not been prejudiced in any manner by the remand order. All his contentions had been accepted by the Tribunal. What remains for the Commercial Tax Officer is only to carry out the directions of the Tribunal.
5. It was next urged by Sri Bhat that the Tribunal had no power to remand the case. Undoubtedly, no specific power had been conferred on Tribunals to remand any case. That power will have to be spelled out, if it can be legitimately done, from section 22(4) of the "Act" which reads :
"The Appellant Tribunal shall, after giving both parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit."
6. The expression "pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit" is an expression of wide import. An order of remand can be properly brought within that expression. We see no reason why these words should be construed narrowly. In fact, if a narrow construction is placed on these words, it may work to the prejudice of the assessees in a large number of cases. There may be occasions when a total remand may be required in the interest of justice. This view of ours is supported by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of U.P. v. Jaipuria Brothers ([1961] 12 S.T.C. 248). While construing section 12(4) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, which corresponds to section 22(4) of the Act, the Madras High Court held in Kalam Somasundaram Chettiar & Sons v. State of Madras ([1955] 6 S.T.C. 304; 1955 M.W.N. 1030) that the Appellate Tribunal had authority to remand a case.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, both the contentions advanced by Sri S. P. Bhat fail and therefore the petition is dismissed. No costs.
8. Petition dismissed.