YASHWANT VARMA - (1.) Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) This revision is directed against an order of the Tribunal dated 25 August 2017 remanding the proceedings to the board of the Assessing Authority for fresh consideration. The judgment impugned has disposed of the appeals preferred by both the Department as well as the assessee. Insofar as the appeal preferred by the assessee is concerned, the only issue which arose for consideration was whether Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) could be denied to the assessee on the ground that the selling dealer had not disclosed all details in Part B of Form XXIV, which was filed in terms of the provisions of the U.P. Value Added Tax, Rules. The submission of Sri Agrawal was that in terms of Rule21(1)(j), I.T.C. could have been denied only if the Tribunal or the Assessing Authority had come to conclude that the copy of the tax invoices in original were not available and where such purchases were not verifiable from the list filed by the selling dealer. The submission of Sri Agrawal was that the original invoice was and is in the possession of the assessee and had been duly produced before the First Appellate Authority. In the aforesaid backdrop, he submits that the order of remand was clearly unwarranted.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the provisions of Rule 21(1)(j), the Court finds force in the submissions advanced on this revision.;