JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned tribunal") dated 25/08/2008 in Second Appeal No. 657/2003, appellant has preferred the present Appeal to consider the following substantial question of law; "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the date for payment of deferred payment of tax is 01st April of each year?" 2. Shri Tanvish Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has heavily relied upon the document/Certificate in Form B & D issued by the Sales Tax Officer, which was produced before the learned tribunal alongwith the Appeal memo at pages 24 & 25. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that considering the aforesaid Certificate issued by the Sales Tax Officer in Form B, the appellant had deposited the entire amount under the Scheme in six installments commencing from 30/05/1997. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned AGP has heavily relied upon the Resolution/Sales Tax Incentive Scheme dated 27/01/1993, more particularly, Clause 6 of the same titled "duration of benefits". 4. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that after the Resolution dated 27/01/1993 there was further Resolution/Incentive Scheme dated 04/04/1996 in which the earlier Resolution dated 27/01/1993 came to be considered and a fresh Resolution/Incentive Scheme was declared under which there is no requirement, which was there in the earlier Resolution/Incentive Scheme dated 27/01/1993. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal, it appears that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned tribunal has missed considering the Certificate in Form B issued by the Sales Tax Officer (page 24 of the Annexure to the Appeal before the learned tribunal). Neither the learned tribunal has considered the aforesaid document/Certificate in Form B nor the Incentive Scheme applicable at the relevant time. Neither the learned tribunal has considered the aforesaid document/Certificate in Form B nor the Incentive Scheme applicable at the relevant time. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter is required to be remanded to the learned tribunal to consider the Appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and after considering the documents, more particularly, the Certificate in Form B issued by the Sales Tax Officer as well as the relevant Incentive Scheme and the Clause mentioned in the relevant Incentive Scheme. 5. In view of the above and without expressing anything in favour of either parties, on the aforesaid ground the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned tribunal to decide the Appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and after considering the relevant Incentive Scheme (relevant Clause in the Incentive Scheme) as well as the documents produced alongwith Appeal, more particularly, Certificate in Form B issued by the Sales Tax Officer. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits in favour of either parties. The present Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. /Department