R. P. MISRA, J. - (1.) For the assessment year 1978-79 the assessee carried on business in manufacture and sale of carpets. He admittedly filed returns for seven months beginning from June to December, 1978. Returns for the remaining months were not filed. In these returns the assessee had disclosed export to the extent of Rs. 12,49,418. 84. Several opportunities were given to the assessee but he did not appear. Ultimately the Sales Tax Officer made a best judgment assessment estimating the turnover of the assessee in U. P. at a figure of Rs. 35,00,000, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority. On further appeal the Sales Tax Tribunal has, by the impugned order passed in June, 1987, allowed the appeal of the assessee, set aside the order passed by the first appellate authority and has remanded the case back to the said authority to work out the tax liability of the assessee afresh in the light of directions made in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It appears that the Sales Tax Tribunal after admitting certain additional evidence has directed the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) for getting the authentically of the original verified from the Sales Tax Officer and grant the relief to which the assessee may be entitled to for its export out of the turnover of Rs. 35,00,000. At the instance of the learned counsel for the assessee record of originals was called for, which has been produced by the learned Standing Counsel. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that no opportunity was given to the assessee to prove its case and the department is not right in law in placing reliance on section 12-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and thereafter in raising such a huge ex parte assessment. From a perusal of the assessment records it is clear that during December 3, 1980 to June 11, 1981, the date of making ex parte assessment, at least seven opportunities were provided to the assessee. Therefore, the grievance raised by the assessee that no opportunity was given is wholly incorrect. Learned counsel for the assessee has in support of his submission relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bhaiya Lal Sharma v. Sales Tax Officer [1970] 26 STC 458; 1970 UPTC 153 in regard to the import of section 12-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. All that has been held in the said case is that the assessing authority cannot presume a fact without any notice or opportunity to the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case such an opportunity was provided to the assessee. The ratio of the said case is, therefore, of no help to the assessee. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee, therefore, fails. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that while remanding the case to the first appellate authority the Sales Tax Tribunal ought not to have fixed a rider of a figure of Rs. 35,00,000. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I find that there is force in this contention. The Tribunal has remanded the case to the first appellate authority for verification of the authenticity of originals filed through the Sales Tax Officer and as, in the present case, the exports were of a very large extent, it was not open to the Sales Tax Tribunal to have fixed a rider of the turnover at a figure of Rs. 35,00,000 as has been done by it in the impugned order. The words "out of the turnover of Rs. 35,00,000" are hereby accordingly deleted from the impugned order of the Tribunal. Subject to the above observations, the revision has got no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The interim order dated October 13, 1987 is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed. .;