JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. -- Heard Sri Ashok Kumar and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order of the Tribunal dated 19.03.2016 is sought to be revised by means of this revision under Section 58 of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008. 3. The argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the Tribunal being the last fact finding authority could have itself examined whether the transactions were covered under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or not as it was possessed of the entire record. The remand of the matter in such a situation for the above purpose alone is not justified. 4. The question therefore before the Court is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for considering if the transactions are covered by Section 6(2) of the Act when the entire record was before it. 5. Sri Pandey accepts that the Tribunal is the last court of fact and on the basis of the record could have examined the above aspect of the matter. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the remand of the matter to the assessing authority is improper and is only aimed to prolong the litigation. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.03.2016 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is requested to consider the matter with regard to transactions being covered under Section 6(2) of the Act on the basis of the record itself and to pass a final order accordingly. 8. The revision is allowed.