Antony Dominic, J.
Heard the Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and the senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The respondent assessee is engaged in the production of M.S.Ingots and M.S.Products. They are a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. On 15.11.2006 their premises were inspected and it is alleged that variation of stock was noticed. It is stated that analysis of production revealed suppression of turn over having a tax effect of ` 54,94,418/-. On that basis, double the amount of tax was levied as penalty.
3. The first appellate authority set aside the penalty and remitted the matter to the Intelligence Officer to conduct a test run and to determine the quantum of penalty to be imposed. The order was challenged before the Tribunal both by the Revenue and the assessee. By Annexure C order, the appeals were dismissed. It is challenging Annexure C order, the Revenue has filed this revision.
4. Though various contentions on the merits of the case have been raised by the learned Government Pleader and these contentions were contradicted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee, we do not think that in the nature of the order passed by the Tribunal it is necessary for us to deal with those contentions. Reading of Tribunal's order shows that after extracting various portions of the contentions raised by both sides and the order passed by the first appellate authority, the Tribunal has decided the appeals by just stating thus:
“The revenue as well as the assessee are being aggrieved by the above order. The contention of the revenue is that the authenticity of the project report submitted before the KSIDC by the company and the acceptance accorded to it by KSIDC is a concrete evidence for energy consumption by the dealer and adopted by the department. Therefore, the revenue has requested to restore the order of the Intelligence officer. The contention of the assessee is that the Intelligence Officer is not justified in adopting 800 units per Ton of MS INGOTS as the measure for estimation. It is contended that much of sanctity cannot be attached to the figure for the reason that it was not arrived at after conducting test production in the assessee's factory. The assessee, therefore, requested to cancel the imposition of penalty. As stated by the first appellate authority it is a fact that quantum of penalty can be determined only after conducting test run. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order of the first appellate authority to conduct test run and then to determine the quantum of penalty is just and reasonable and hence no interference is required by this Tribunal.”
5. Reading of the above paragraph shows that the Tribunal has not independently dealt with any of the contentions raised by either of the parties and instead by a laconic order dismissed the appeals. Such a course of action by the Tribunal, the final fact finding authority, cannot be approved. For that reason itself, we set aside Annexure C order and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for deciding the appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee afresh, with notice to both sides and dealing it with the contentions raised by the respective parties.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the dispute and that the Tribunal shall decide the matter in accordance with law as directed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge jes ANIL K. NARENDRAN, Judge