COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Vs. SARSADI LAL ENTERPRISES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions have been filed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P., Lucknow, against a common order dated May 24, 2000 passed by the Tribunal in two connected Second Appeal Nos. 87 and 88 of 2000 relating to the assessment years 1996 -97 and 1997 -98 (Central).

(2.) THE dealer -opposite party carries on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar, sheera, Indian -made foreign liquor, denatured sprit, etc. There is no dispute with regard to the production and sale of the dealer -opposite party. The dispute is only with regard to rejection of stock transfer of Indian -made foreign liquor. For the assessment year 1996 -97 the assessing authority rejected the claim of stock transfer to the tune of Rs. 1,27,04,079.49. Similarly, for the assessment year 1997 -98 the assessing authority rejected the claim of stock transfer with regard to Rs. 8,16,12,510. The case of the dealer was that it transferred the Indian -made foreign liquor to its depots situate in Punjab and Rajasthan. The assessing authority rejected the claim of the stock transfer on the ground that the said goods were moved outside the State of U. P. in pursuance of a prior contract with M/s. B. D. A. Ltd., Bombay. A contract was entered into with the said party on August 9, 1996, according to the dealer. The assessment order was challenged in appeal. The first appellate authority was of the view that under the excise law of Punjab and Rajasthan, import of Indian -made foreign liquor was prohibited in the States of Punjab and Rajasthan. The dealer -opposite party had opened their depots in these places and goods were transferred from Pilkhani Distillery to these places. The first appellate authority remanded the matter back for fresh consideration to the assessing authority with certain directions to examine the aforesaid claim of the dealer -opposite party in the light of the agreement and other material on the record, by the order dated January 11, 2000, in respect of these two years. On further appeals to the Tribunal, at the instance of the dealer, the Tribunal allowed the second appeals as it was of the view that the order of remand was not justified as the first appellate authority itself has recorded all the necessary findings and found that it was a case of stock transfer. In the revision the following questions of law have been sought to be raised:

(3.) SRI Bharatji Agrawal, learned senior counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and submits that on the facts it is established that the transactions in question are nothing but stock transfers and the matter, if so required by the court, be remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration.