Where an assessment has been set aside and remanded for making it afresh by a revising authority, the jurisdiction of the assessing authority is confined to the direction given by the revising authority.

( 1 ) THIS is the Commissioners revision under Section 11 (1) of the U. P Sales Tax Act. The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm, carried on business in foodgrains, oil-seeds and bardana at Mauranipur, Jhansi. In its assessment to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1961-62 the assessee had disclosed inter-State sales at Rs. 15,745. During the course of assessment proceedings on a scrutiny of the accounts the Sales Tax Officer found that in respect of purchases made by it as purchasing agent for ex- U. P. principals, it had used its own bardana, the value of which was Rs. 34,051. 73. In the opinion of the Sales Tax Officer these sales of bardana were liable to be treated as inter-State sales. The contention of the assessee was that since it had made supplies of bardana from its own account, the same could not be treated as sales liable to tax under the Central Act. That argument was repelled and the aforesaid amount was brought to tax. In respect of certain other inter-State sales of foodgrains to the extent of Rs. 7,555, the assessees claim for concessional rate of tax was not accepted.

( 2 ) THE assessee filed an appeal and disputed the levy of tax on the value of bardana, that is, Rs. 34,051. 73, and denial of concessional rate on sales of Rs. 7,555. The appellate authority, by its order dated 6th August, 1965, agreed with the assessing authority with regard to the taxability of bardana but as -regards the assessees claim of concessional rate of tax in respect of sales amounting to Rs. 7,555, held that the Sales Tax Officer should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to show that the purchasing dealers to whom those sales had been made were registered dealers on the date when the purchases were made by them and for that purpose remanded the case with a direction to the Sales Tax Officer to give an opportunity to the assessee to establish that the purchasers were registered dealers on the date when these sales were made to them.

( 3 ) AFTER remand, when the case was taken up by the Sales Tax Officer, again a contention was urged on behalf of the assessee that the alleged sales of bardana could not be treated as inter-State sales. The Sales Tax Officer repelled this contention on the ground that the appellate order in this behalf had become final. The assessees claim in regard to the sales of Rs. 7,555 was accepted.

( 4 ) THE assessee filed an appeal and contended before the appellate court that the outturn of Rs. 34,051. 73 in respect of bardana had been wrongly subjected to tax. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) repelled that contention on the ground that inasmuch as the assessee did not file any revision against the previous order of the appellate authority, it was not open for it to reagitate this point.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved, the assessee took up the matter in revision before the Additional Judge (Revisions ). The learned Additional Judge (Revisions) without referring to this aspect of the case, accepted the assessees contention and held that the disputed turnover could not be subjected to tax under the Central Act. Aggrieved, the department has filed the present revision.

( 6 ) IT was submitted before me by the learned standing counsel that the view taken by the additional Judge (Revisions) was erroneous. He could not have allowed the assessee to reagitate this point inasmuch as the assessee had not filed any revision against the appellate order dated 6th August, 1965, in which a clear finding had been recorded that the disputed turnover was liable to be taxed under the Central Act. When that finding was allowed to become final, the assessee could not have been allowed to reagitate this question subsequently. On the other hand, on behalf of the assessee, reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram dayal Harbilas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1979 UPTC 999 (FB ).

( 7 ) IN my opinion, there is considerable merit in what has been submitted by t