(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short "Tribunal") passed in Second Appeal No. 365 of 2011 by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee and has quashed and set aside the assessment order dated 31-3-2011, the appellant?State has preferred the present appeal with the following substantial questions of law :
(2.) At the outset, it is required to be noted that while issuing the notice for final disposal, the Division Bench noted the contentions on behalf of the appellant?State that as the appeal before the learned Tribunal was against the order passed by the first appellate authority, the learned Tribunal ought to have decided the appeal on merits and ought to have restricted the issue of pre?deposit only. Therefore, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Smithkline Beecham Company Health C. Limited, [2003 (157) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)] , this Court issued notice for final disposal to remand the matter to the learned Tribunal or to consider the issue with respect to pre?deposit only.
(3.) Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and for the reasons stated below, this Court proposes to remand the matter to the learned Tribunal to consider the issue with respect to pre?deposit only, which is subject matter before the learned Tribunal.