The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer is limited by the scope of the remand order, and the officer cannot enlarge his jurisdiction by treating the remand order as an open remand.

G. C. Bharuka, J.

1. - In this reference arising out of an order passed by this Court under Sec.33 (2) of Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter in short the Act only) the following questions of law have been fallen for consideration :

"1. Whethere on the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal was justified in law in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to claim concessional rate of tax, for sales to the extent of Rs.18.91.723/- during the assessment year 1957-58 made to registered dealers and said to be supported by c forms on account of clerical mistakes committed in filing the return claiming the said amount showing the said sales next counting year for the reason that earlier remand order was a bar in the way of the petitioner for making the claim ?

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the revised return filed by the petitioner before the assessing authority after the remand for the same reason ?"

2. This reference relates to the assessment period 1-7-1957 to 31-3-1958 relating to an assessment made respecting the liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter in short the c. S. T. Act only) During this period the assessee had affected sales to the tune of Rs.10,90,911/- to registered dealers and claimed concessional rate of tax on the sales but his claim on this count was disallowed to the extent of Rs.1,13,034/- on the ground that the sales to this extent were not supported by c Forms. The assessee also claimed adjustment of credit notes worth Rs.7,37,688/- but the same was also rejected on the ground that the claim related to the previous period of assessment which has become final. After unsuccessful appeal the assessee preferred a revision before the Tribunal. At the revisional stage, it was urged on behalf of the assessee that keeping in view the provisions contained under Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Central Sales Tax (Bihar) Rules, 1957 the lower authorities should not have disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs. J,13,034/-representing the sales to registered dealers since the supportive c Forms have been duly filed partly before the Assessing Officer and partly before the appellate Authority. It was contended that the delay in filing was caused because the purchasing dealers had failed to furnish the same promptly. In respect of the credit notes, the submission of the assessee before the tribunal was that the credit notes in fact related to the periods in question and the lower athorities had erred in rejecting the claim by treating the same to be for previous periods. On identical disputes two more revisions were preferred by the assessee relating to the periods of assessment 1958-59 and 1959-60. On consideration of these facts and submissions the Tribunal while allowing all the revisions in part by passing a consolidated order, remanded the cases for re-examining the aforesaid claims only made on behalf of the assessee. The operative part of the order of the Tribunal reads as under :

"in these circumstances, the applications in revisions are allowed in part and the cases are remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the declarations produced in these cases and to allow such claims of the applicant if these appear to be in order. The Assessing Officer should also verify if the claims of the applicant for adjustment of credit notes were made for the respective years of assessment and if the they are older those claims of the applicant should be allowed. "

3. When the matter was taken up by the Assessing Officer for examination of the aforesaid claim of the assessee pursuant to the remand order by the Tribunal the assessee filed a revised return putting forward an additional claim of Rs.18.91.723/- said to be representing the sales affected to registered dealers during this period. The claim was disallowed on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the remand order. The assessee pursuaded his cause for additional claim up to revisiona