- (1.) By the present writ application, the writ petitioner challenged an order dated March 18, 1999 passed by the Taxation Tribunal and the orders dated September 13, 1995, April 7, 1996 and January 15, 1998 passed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, viz., the Commercial Tax Officer, Asansol Charge, District Burdwan, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Asansol Circle, Burdwan and the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Asansol Circle, Burdwan. By the impugned order, the Tribunal had set aside the order in revision dated February 19, 1996 passed by the respondent No. 2 who observed in his order in the revision case filed before him that the vehicle was inspected at the place on the road linking Chittaranjan and Asansol and also the roads leading to Ranchi and it was found that Section 68 of the 1994 Act was contravened. Against this order, the writ petitioner filed a further revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Asansol Circle who confirmed the order in his decision dated January 30, 1997.
(2.) The applicant moved the Taxation Tribunal for the second time challenging the said order dated January 30, 1997 and after hearing both sides, the Taxation Tribunal disposed of the petition by remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for re-consideration of the whole aspect relating to the plea of the writ petitioner that the driver had with him the declaration in form No. 43. After remanding, the Deputy Commissioner disposed of the revisional petition afresh by the order dated January 15, 1998 holding, inter alia, that the seizure was valid and the amount of penalty was proper. By the present application, the said order was challenged before the Taxation Tribunal and the Taxation Tribunal observed in its order that the reason given by the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated January 15, 1998 for his belief that the driver of the vehicle did not have with him the declaration in form No. 43, was erroneous.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in remanding the matter back to the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Asansol Circle and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal remanding the matter to the respondent No. 2 for re-hearing must be set aside as the Tribunal itself agreed with the finding of the Deputy Commissioner by which it was held that the driver of the vehicle was carrying the declaration in form No. 43 with him.;