Antony Dominic, J. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This revision is filed aggrieved by Annexure C order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax Additional Appellate Tribunal, Palakkad in TA(VAT) No.785/13, whereby an appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
3. The respondent is an assessee under the KVAT Act.
Assessment for the year 2009-10 was re-opened and completed under Section 25 of the Act. That was set aside by the first appellate authority. It was in those circumstances that the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was disposed of by Annexure C order dated 24/2/14. It is this order which is under challenge before us.
4. Although various contentions on the merits of the controversy are raised before us, in the facts of this case, we do not
O.T.Rev.No.103/14
: 2 :
think it necessary to deal with any of those contentions. Reading of the order shows that the Tribunal has referred to the grounds of appeal, the contentions, the order of the first appellate authority and declined interference merely by stating that they are of the view that the findings of the first appellate authority are just and reasonable. In other words, the Tribunal did not deal with any of the contentions or adjudicate on any of the issues raised by either of the parties.
5. In our view, the Tribunal, being the final fact finding authority, is obliged to pronounce on each of the contentions raised by the parties and decide the issues on merits rather than just putting its seal of approval on the findings of the appellate authority. For that reason, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in TA No.785/13 and remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
O.T.Rev. is disposed of as above.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE