Subramonian Poti, C.J.
1. The order of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal from which this revision has arisen is one remanding the case to the assessing authority for de novo disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations in the order of the Tribunal. The liability to tax of the transactions by the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, Quilon, which is the assessee, is the question in controversy. The goods purchased from various local suppliers by the assessee are being exported and African kernels are imported by the assessee and it is the taxability of these transactions that is the subject-matter of this revision. The Appellate Tribunal found that the necessary records were not available and without them there could not be a satisfactory disposal of the matter. It is this which prompted the Appellate Tribunal to remand the case.
2. Dealing with export of goods purchased from local suppliers the Tribunal observed :
A copy of the agreement for the supply of goods entered into by the local suppliers and the appellant is not available in the file and is also not placed before us.... As full details are not available, we are not in a position to decide the case. Therefore we are of the view that the case must go back to the assessing authority for considering all these factors.
3. Dealing with import of African kernels, the Tribunal observed in paragraph 10 of its order :.the agreement entered into by Cashew Corporation of India with the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation is not placed before us.
Again the Tribunal observed with reference to the agreement entered into by the CCI with KSCDC that 'this important document has not been placed before us'. Ultimately the Tribunal observed :
In the absence of these details, and in the absence of the contract between KSCDC and CCI it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion. So, the only course left open to us is to send back the files back to the concerned assessing authority for ascertaining all these details and to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law.
The reasons for the remand has been explained in elaborate detail and we see no reason to find that they are not sufficient to justify the remand when the Tribunal feels that the assessing authority has not chosen to get the documents which are relevant for the purpose of the assessment and the assessee has not been called upon to produce those documents. It is only fair that the case is remitted back to the assessing authority so that what ought to have been done is done. The propriety of the remand, which is the subject-matter of the question raised in this revision is answered against the revision-petitioner. The remand is called for. We see no reason for interference. Hence the revision is dismissed but without costs.