Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. The order of the Court was made by JANARTHANAM, J.M/s. Darangadara Chemical Works Limited, Sahupuram, have reported a total and a taxable turnover of Rs. 6, 63, 55, 019.89 and Rs. 6, 52, 08, 315.86 respectively in form I return filed for the assessment year 1982-83, claiming exemption on a turnover of Rs. 11, 46, 704.03. 2. The accounts were called for and checked by the assessing officer, viz., the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchendur. 3. After the check of the accounts, the assessing officer determined the taxable turnover for the year in question by his order dated March 13, 1986 as below : 1 . Turnover not covered by "C" forms at ... Rs. 3, 35, 904.00 10 per cent. 2. Turnover covered by "C" form at 4 per ... Rs. 6, 50, 36, 992.10 cent. 3. Alleged depot sales treated as ... Rs. 37, 30, 802.37 inter-State sales at 10 per cent. Total Rs. 6, 91, 03, 698.47 4. (a) The assessee-dealers, being aggrieved by the terms of depot sales as inter-State sales at 10 per cent to the tune of Rs. 37, 30, 802.37, filed an appeal in C.S.T. No. 33 of 1986 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, and he, in turn, held that transactions to a turnover of Rs. 2, 27, 521.11 would have to be treated as inter-State sales and accordingly, the assessment order to the extent of Rs. 2, 27, 521.11 would have to be upheld. He, however, with regard to the balance of transactions involving a turnover of Rs. 35, 03, 281.26 held that the claim of the assessee-dealers that they were cases of mere branch transfers and not inter-State sales would have to be upheld and accordingly, did so. (b) The assessee-dealers again filed a further appeal in M.T.A. No. 104 of 1987 before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai (for short "the Tribunal") with regard to the disallowed portion of the claim to the extent of Rs. 2, 27, 521.11. Pending appeal, the Revenue also filed an enhancement petition in M.T.M.P. No. 101 of 1997. 2, 27, 521.11. Pending appeal, the Revenue also filed an enhancement petition in M.T.M.P. No. 101 of 1997. The enhancement petitions in respect of the other assessment years in respect of which main appeals are pending had also been filed by the Revenue.(c) The Tribunal considered the appeal in M.T.A. No. 104 of 1987 and enhancement petition in M.T.M.P. No. 101 of 1987 relatable to the assessment year 1982-83 along with other appeals and other enhancement petitions for various years, viz., 1980-81, 1981-82, 1983-84 and 1984-85 and passed a common order dated February 11, 1988. (d) The appeal in M.T.A. No. 104 of 1987 had been allowed in toto and this is discernible from paragraph 13 of the common order, which reads as under : "13. The decisions and discussions rendered in M.T.A. No. 131 of 1987 are also applicable to their M.T.A. Nos. 85 of 1987, 104 of 1987 and 105 of 1987. Hence all these appeals are allowed." (e) M.T.M.P. No. 101 of 1987 had been dismissed and this is traceable to paragraph 15 of the common order, which runs as under : "15. In fine, all the appeals allowed except M.T.A. No. 130 of 1987 setting aside of the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and all the enhancement petitions are dismissed and M.T.A. No. 130 of 1987 is remanded." (f) The aggrieved Revenue filed Tax Case Revision Nos. 438 to 449 of 1990 relatable, to assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85. During the pendency of those tax case revisions, the assessing officer reopened the case under section16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short "the TNGST Act") read with section9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act (for short "the CST Act") and by his order dated January 24, 1989, the assessing officer brought to tax the alleged escaped turnover to the tune of Rs. 51, 47, 405 at 10 per cent for the assessment year 1982-83, besides levying penalty at one and half times of the tax due. (g) The aggrieved assessee-dealers filed an appeal in A.P. No. 17 of 1989 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli (for short "the A.A.C."). In the said appeal, the assessee-dealers threw a challenge not only on the merits of the case but also on the question of limitation. (g) The aggrieved assessee-dealers filed an appeal in A.P. No. 17 of 1989 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli (for short "the A.A.C."). In the said appeal, the assessee-dealers threw a challenge not only on the merits of the case but also on the question of limitation. The said A.A.C. allowed the appeal of the assessee-dealers on merits by his order dated January 18, 1993 in the sense of deleting the turnover to the tune of Rs. 51, 47, 405, though he rejected the plea of limitation as set up by them.(h) The assessee-dealers filed further appeal in M.T.A. No. 552 of 1993 before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, (for short "the Tribunal") questioning the validity or otherwise of the order of the A.A.C. as relatable to the rejection of the plea of limitation, as set up by the assessee-dealers. (i) During the pendency of the appeal, the Revenue also filed M.T.M.P. No. 507 of 1993, questioning the deletion of turnover by A.A.C. to the tune of Rs. 51, 47, 405. (j) The Tribunal, by its order dated March 11, 1996 passed the operative portion of its order in paragraph 12 as below "12. In fine, the appeal is dismissed and turnover involved in enhancement petition is remanded to the revisional authority for de novo examination." (k) The aggrieved assessee-dealers have come forward with this present action-Tax Case (R) No. 354 of 1996. 5. From the pith and submission of Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee-dealers and Mr. K. Ravi Raja Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), representing the Revenue, the one and only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the order of the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is sustainable in law ? 6. The attack on order of the Tribunal is relatable to twin aspects, viz., the validity or otherwise of the order of the Tribunal as relatable to the plea of limitation as set up by the assessee-dealers and the validity or otherwise of the order of remand by Tribunal as relatable, to the enhancement petition in respect of the deletion of the turnover to the tune of Rs. 51, 47, 405 to the revisional authority for de novo examination. 7. Mr. 51, 47, 405 to the revisional authority for de novo examination. 7. Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee-dealers, conceded during the course of arguments, that he is not questioning the validity or otherwise of the order of the Tribunal, as relatable to the plea of limitation set up by the assessee-dealers and he has no objection for the order of the Tribunal to stand as it is, as relatable to the question of limitation. In that view of the matter, we are not going into any discussion on the aspect of limitation, as set up by the assessee-dealers and confirm the order of the Tribunal in that regard. 8. We shall now enter into the arena of discussion as relatable to the validity or otherwise of the order of remand by the Tribunal, as relatable to the enhancement petition. 9. The rationale or reasoning for the remand of the enhancement petition are couched in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the order of the Tribunal and they read as under : "9. Then coming to the enhancement petition, two things are to be looked into. (i) the nature of records recovered by the agencies of the department and its validity in invoking the revision under section 16. (ii) the claim of the appellant that in no instance the department had proved that the goods were directly moved to out-State customers from Sahupuram. The material evidences placed before us with regard to the support of revision were not examined in proper perspective before ordering revision. The opportunity to cross-examine pleaded for by the appellant ought to have been provided for them. 10. Incidentally we have also examined the fact that the entire assessment was subjected to the examination of this Bench already and in M.T.A. No. 104 of 1987 dated February 11, 1988 the plea of the appellant was allowed and the enhancement prayed by the department was dismissed. 11. Now that the revision is ordered as the new material evidences which were not properly examined while ordering revision, we feel that it would be just to remand the enhancement petition to the revisional authority to examine after providing an opportunity to the appellant to refute the evidence including the cross-examination prayed for by him and pass appropriate orders on the face of records." 10. From a cursory perusal of paragraphs 9 to 11 as extracted above, it is rather crystal clear that the Tribunal did not at all apply its mind in making the order of remand in question. The order under attack in the enhancement petition is the order of A.A.C. and not the revised order of the assessing officer. The revised order of assessment by the assessing officer had been admittedly set aside by A.A.C. and the same could not at all be stated to be in existence in the eye of law thereafter and the Tribunal Was seized of the consideration of the validity or otherwise of the order of A.A.C. It is therefore, incumbent upon the Tribunal to express its opinion as to how the order of the A.A.C. went wrong, although there is no duty cast upon it to say as to how such an order was not right. We are unable to find any discussion on such aspect of the matter. Such absence of discussion is a pointer indicative of utter non-application of mind on the part of the Tribunal. The Tribunal expressed the view that the assessing officer, before ever he passed the revised assessment, had not taken into consideration certain material facts and evidence in support of the revision of assessment. The Tribunal, would further add and say that the assessing officer had not provided adequacy of opportunity to cross-examine the carriers from whom delivery money receipts were recovered. All such a rationale or reasoning could, if at all, be construed as supplemental reasons for supporting the order of A.A.C. and not otherwise. Further, the Tribunal, being an appellate authority, cannot at all shirk its responsibility to pass the necessary and requisite orders without remanding the matter to a subordinate authority, provided all the materials necessary for passing the orders are available on record. This is not a case lacking in materials and the sordid fact is that all such materials were available for adjudication of the issue arising for consideration by the Tribunal. 11. In such state of affairs, we are of the view that the Tribunal in ordering remand to the revisional authority for a de novo examination, actually took shelter under the facade of escapism in discharging its function. 11. In such state of affairs, we are of the view that the Tribunal in ordering remand to the revisional authority for a de novo examination, actually took shelter under the facade of escapism in discharging its function. This sort of a disposal by an authority like the Tribunal causes prejudice to the cause of justice, besides injuring the assessee-dealers and making an assault on the public interest. Admittedly, the appeal before the Tribunal was pending for about 3 years. By this sort of remand, the matter will be under hibernation at least for a minimum period of 2 years in the normal run of things. Going by the adage or saying that justice delayed is justice denied, the delayed justice to be given to the assessee-dealers will tantamount to denial of justice even in case the assessee-dealers happen to succeed. 12. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal at least in future should not resort to such lackadaisical disposal of cases coming before it. 13. To put it in a nut shell, we are unable to discern as to for what reason the matter had been remanded to the revisional authority for de novo examination. Such a remand order, we rather feel, cannot be allowed to stand as it is nd the same deserves to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for disposal on merits according to law. 14. In view of the fact that the assessment is relatable to the assessment year 1982-83, the Tribunal is directed to give top priority to this matter and dispose it of on merits, according to law, within three months from the date of the communication of this order to it and report the same to this Court. 15. The revision is thus disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Consequently, no further orders are necessary in T.C.M.P. No. 489 of 1996.