Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60902 Court No. - 10 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 6 of 2025 Revisionist :- S/S A. S. Fuels (Pvt) Ltd. Opposite Party :- The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Ved Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite party. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 13.11.2024 passed in Second Appeal No. 19 of 2024, (A.Y. 2016-17) under Section 9 (2) read with Section 32 of Central Sales Tax Act. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. With the consent of the parties, the present revision is decided at the stage of admission. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is a registered dealer having TIN No. 09682202078 and engaged in purchase and sale of Cement, Clinker, Coal and Coke in all its form. The dispute is relating to estimation of Central Sales regarding sale of Clinker in the assessment year in question. He submits that the revisionist is maintaining all its books of account as required under the Act and all its entries were duly verified however the assessing authority while framing the assessment order has estimated some sale without transportation and assessment order has been passed. He submits that purchase were FOR against the enhanced turnover. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the assessment order and after considering the material available on records, the appellate court has set aside the enhancement of turnover against which the revenue has filed second appeal before the Tribunal, who has remanded the matter to the first appellate authority. He submits that the Tribunal being the last court of fact and law ought to have decided the issue instead of remanding the same. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of M/s Indian Hide Company, Kanpur Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1994 UPTC 798) and M/s Ghanshyam Dass Naresh Kumar Galla Vyapari, Jhansi Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1996 UPTC 10). He further submits that the revenue while filing the second appeal before the Tribunal has stated that due opportunity to verify the record was not given, therefore, the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the first appellate authority, which is bad. Per contra, learned ACSC has supported the impugned order and submits that additional evidence were filed before the first appellate authority and once the additional evidence was filed, the revenue should have given the opportunity to rebut the same or to submit a report, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly remanded the matter. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. It is not in dispute that the best judgement assessment was made and the enhancement of turn over was made against which the first appeal has been filed, which was allowed. The Tribunal being the last Court of fact and law ought to have decided the issue involved in the present case one for all. The Tribunal should have examine the record and pass a final decision instead of remanding the matter to the first appellate Court. Further, in the grounds of appeal or before the the Tribunal, the revenue has failed to point out any material which they wanted to rebut but could not given opportunity to rebut before the first appellate authority. Once the revenue has failed to pin point any document which they wanted to rebut, either before the Tribunal or before this Court during course of the argument, the remand of the matter is not justified in the eyes of law. The stand of the revenue appears only to prolong the proceedings. This Court in the case of M/s Indian Hide Company and M/s Ghanshyam Dass Naresh Kumar Galla Vyapari (supra) has held that if the entire material is available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal after due verification of the material ought to have decide the matter instead of remanding the same. In view of above, the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the tribunal is not sustained in the eyes of law and same is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal, who shall decide the issue at its own stage instead of remanding the matter. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revisionist and against the revenue accordingly. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad