JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. Present three revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 20th May, 2005 relating to the assessment years. 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 under the Central Sales Tax Act. By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has remanded back the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment.
2. The applicant is a Company incoiporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement. In the State of U.P. the principal place of business is at Kanpur Nagar and accordingly, the applicant is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act with the Assessing Authority at Kanpur Nagar. The applicant has various branches at Delhi, Haryana, Uttaranchal, Punjab, Rajasthan and also in U.P. In the State of U.P., the applicant has a branch at Saharanpur. It has appointed a clearing and forwarding agent at Saharanpur, M/S Saharanpur Cement and Clearing Agency, Ambala Road, Saharanpur. In the State of Uttaranchal, the branch office is at Chauli. In all the aforesaid years, the applicant claimed stock transfers to its various branches, namely, Delhi, Haryana, Uttaranchal, Punjab and Rajasthan. On the examination of the various stock transfers, the assessing authority accepted the claim of stock transfer to all the branches except Uttaranchal. The stock transfer to the Uttaranchal depot has been rejected and treated as inter-State sales. The stock transfer to the Uttaranchal branch was through its branch situated at Saharanpur. Appeals filed against the assessment order have been rejected by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Kanpur Nagar. The applicant filed second appeals before the Tribunal, which were allowed, and the matter have been remanded back to the assessing officer.
3. Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal in its order has accepted the plea of the applicant in respect of all the objections which have been made basis for rejecting the stock transfer still remanded back the case to the assessing officer to provide fresh inning which is not justified. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not conclusively accepted the plea of the applicant in respect of all the transactions. He submitted that the Tribunal has prima facie found some of the contentions of the dealer correct and acceptable but no conclusive opinion has been expressed inasmuch as the Tribunal was of the view that the matter requires further examination and consideration by the assessing authority. He submitted that for the first time before the Tribunal certificate (wrongly stated as affidavit in the order) of Shyam Cement, Rishikesh was filed which requires investigation. He submitted that the Tribunal found that each and every transaction is required to be examined in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the Case of The State of Bihar and Anr. v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., reported in 27 STC, 127. The Tribunal has also found prima facie force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that challan book of different series have been maintained in respect of the vehicle moved to the Dehradun and Rajasthan and after the creation of Uttaranchal at Chauli 1500 square foot godown has been taken with the capacity of 250 M.T. where regular employees are appointed with the telephone facility and in case of vehicle going to Uttaranchal, toll tax at the rate of Rs.50/- per truck was paid at Chauli which is applicable to the commercial transaction only and the vehicle which goes from Saharanpur without any transaction of sale, toll tax is not payable and these aspect of the matter has not been examined. The Tribunal found that this procedure relates to the Government Department and can be verified from the Government Department before reaching to any conclusion. In respect of other issue also, the Tribunal has expressed its prima facie opinion and was of the view that the matter requires fresh examination by the assessing authority.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the order of the Tribunal.
6. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has expressed its prima facie opinion on the submissions made by the applicant. No conclusive opinions have been expressed on various aspects inasmuch as the Tribunal was of the view that a fresh enquiry and examination is required. The certificate of Shyam Cement, Rishikesh was filed for the first time before the Tribunal. The correctness of the certificate requires further enquiry. The enquiry with regard to the payment of toll tax is also required to be made from concerned department, which has not been made. Each and every transaction of stock transfer is required to be examined as held by the Apex Court in the case of The State of Bihar and Anr. v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., (supra). There are other aspects of the matter also where the Tribunal desires further enquiry and investigation. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The applicant will have full opportunity before the assessing authority to adduce, all the evidences in support of his claim.
7. In the result, all the three revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. Dated. 30.08.2005.