SUDHIR NARAIN, J. - (1.) This revision has been filed under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act and relates to the assessment year 1984-85. The applicant is carrying on the business of gur, food-grains, in its own account as well as on commission agency. The applicant in the assessment proceedings submitted account books and disclosed sales at Rs. 80,76,660. 30. The Sales Tax Officer, Gulawathi, by its order dated March 8, 1989, rejected the hooks of account and estimated the suppressed taxable sales of goods at Rs. 47,50. 000. He rejected the books of account and estimated the suppressed sales of goods on the basis of seized documents namely, exhibit 13, from the business premises of M/s. Khusi Ram Ramesh Chand, at the time of survey on April 12, 1979. The applicant during the course of assessment proceedings sought confrontation of the original exhibits and asked for an opportunity of cross-examination of the partners of M/s. Khusi Ram Ramesh Chand. The Sales Tax Officer summoned Ramesh Chand, the partner of M/s. Khusi Ram Ramesh Chand but he did not appear. The Sales Tax Officer, thereafter, without taking any coercive measure to secure his presence, proceeded to decide the case and assessed the applicant relying on the document exhibit 13. The applicant filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial ). Sales Tax, Bulandshahar. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) by order dated August 28, 1989, set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer and remanded back the case to him with the direction to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to the applicant. The applicant filed second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) remanding back the case to the Sales Tax Officer. His main contention was that the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) acted illegally in remanding the case to the Sales Tax Officer. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by order dated December 28, 1991. The present revision has been filed challenging the said order. The learned counsel for the applicant urged that once it was found that the account books of the applicant cannot be rejected on the ground that there are certain entries in the account books of another firm which relate to certain transaction with the applicant and unless he is confronted with the original documents and given an opportunity of cross-examination to the proprietor/partner of the concerned firm, the remand of the case cannot be made for filling up the lacuna in the case. The burden was upon the department concerned and the Sales Tax Officer having failed to take steps for providing the opportunity to the applicant for cross-examination of the proprietor of the firm concerned and to confront the applicant with the original documents and the assessing officer failed to perform his duty, it cannot be given a fresh opportunity prejudicial to the rights of the applicant. There is no dispute that under section 9 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act the appellate authority has power to remand case. Section 9 (3) (a) (iii) provides as follows : " Set aside the order and direct the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after such inquiry as may be specified;" Section 9 does contemplate power of the remand by the appellate authority and it further empowers the appellate authority to direct the assessing authority to pass a fresh order of assessment after such inquiry as may be specified in the order. The grounds on which such an order shall be passed has not been enumerated. It, however, postulates further inquiry in the proceedings after remand. While considering the scope of remand this Court in Hind Vastra Bhandar v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. [1969] 23 STC 311, observed as follows : " The power to remand a case has been conferred upon the Judge (Appeals) by section 9 (3) (b) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act which empowers the appellate authority to 'set aside the assessment and direct the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after such further enquiry as may be directed. The statute does not lay down the grounds upon which the appellate authority may remand the case. No limitations have been prescribed restricting the power. The appellate authority exercises quasi-judicial functions, and there can be no dispute that the power to remand must be exercised by it, not according to whim or humour, but in accordance with sound judicial principles. And it is a power which must be used with circumspection. " In the said case the order of remand was passed by the Sales Tax Officer to find out whether the particular person was a partner and, as such, was liable for tax. The court, considering the circumstances of the case, held that the order of remand was unjustified. No rigid rules can be fixed laying down the principles as to when the appellate authority can remand the matter. The courts have evolved certain judicial principles and they should be adhered to while passing the order of remand. A remand cannot be made for a purpose of de novo trial, for permitting the parties to adduce fresh evidence to fill up the lacuna or to decide a point when the material is already on record. On the other hand, remand is permissible when the affected party has not been given an opportunity of hearing or necessary questions of fact and law required to be determined have not been determined by the authority concerned or the authority committed some procedural irregularity and illegality. In the present case, it has been found that certain transactions mentioned in exhibit 13 related to the applicant. These entries were made in the account books of M/s. Khusi Ram Ramesh Chand. A photostat copy of the entries of the said account book was furnished by the Sales Tax Officer to the applicant. The applicant had moved an application for cross-examination of Ramesh Chand whose signature was appearing on exhibit 13. The Sales Tax Officer had also summoned Ramesh Chand but he did not appear. The Sales Tax Officer did not take any coercive process to produce him. The appellate authority remanded the case so that Ramesh Chand or the partner of firm M/s. Khusi Ram Ramesh Chand may be produced for the purpose of cross-examination. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Faqir Chand Hazari Mal 1981 UPTC 656. The facts in this case were that entries in the diary of a third person were seized in survey of assessee's premises. The assessee had filed affidavit that he desired to cross-examine the proprietor of the firm in whose diary the entries were made which were sought to be taken into consideration in the assessment proceedings. The Sales Tax Officer did not pass any order on the said application but rejected the books of account of the assessee. The appellate authority remanded the matter but on revision the said order was set aside on the ground that the department had not taken steps to produce the partner of the firm on whose diary the reliance was being placed. On revision against the said order, this Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. In the present case, the order of remand has been upheld by the Tribunal and it was found that the Sales Tax Officer had summoned Ramesh Chand but thereafter when he failed to appear, no further steps were taken by the Sales Tax Officer. In this case the court itself distinguished the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries 1981 UPTC 240. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries 1981 UPTC 240 the Sales Tax Officer had rejected the account books of the assessee on the basis of the entries found in the books of account of a third party. The Sales Tax Officer had summoned such party but as he was not available, he proceeded to pass an order. The order was affirmed in appeal. The assessee filed revision and it was held that the books of account of the assessee could not be rejected on the basis of books of account of a third party when the assessee was not given an opportunity of cross-examination of that party. The High Court on revision by the department held that the prayer of the department for the remand of the case was justified. The Sales Tax Officer having not taken further steps for summoning the third party, committed an irregularity in the course of the assessment proceedings and the proper course was to remand the case to remove that irregularity, i. e. , for giving the assessee an opportunity of cross-examination such third party. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of this decision. The learned counsel for the applicant cited various decisions - Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Moti Oil Mills 1980 UPTC 557, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Usha Sales (P.) Ltd. 1981 UPTC 954, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. [1989] 72 STC 62 (All.); 1988 UPTC 792 and Duggal Bricks Supply Company v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1989] 72 STC 347 (All.); 1988 UPTC 1246. They are all distinguishable on facts. The applicant shall be given an opportunity to confront with the original document, exhibit 13 and to cross-examine Ramesh Chand and such other patties in support of his contention that those entries do not relate to the transaction of the applicant. When in a case, an order of remand has been passed exercising judicial discretion, such order should not be normally interfered with in revision. In Sri Malik Chand Fakir Chand v. Sales Tax Officer [1975] 35 STC 228 (All.), it was held that where the appellate authority has rightly exercised its discretion in remanding the case to the assessing authority, such order of remand should not he interfered with. In the present case it cannot be held that the Tribunal acted illegally in exercising its jurisdiction by remanding the case. In the result, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;