ASTHANA, J. - (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the assessee and having perused the statement of the case and other material on record, we think that the only manner in which the question can be answered is that the learned Judge (Revisions) was right in remanding the case for reconsideration to the assessing authority. The sole ground on which the assessee's account books were rejected was that his electric consumption was not proportionate to the production of the oil; therefore, his accounts were unreliable. This was the representation made by the assessee before the Judge (Revisions). The learned Judge (Revisions) accepted this contention of the assessee, set aside the appellate order as well as the assessment order and remanded the case for reconsideration and decision in accordance with law and the observations made by him in his judgment. This order appears to us to be completely in favour of the assessee. It was urged by the learned counsel for the assessee before us that the assessment should have been totally quashed and no further assessment proceedings should have been permitted to be taken in the circumstances. We do not find any tenability whatsover in this contention. The assessee cannot escape his liability and if his account books were not properly taken into consideration by the assessing authority, the learned Judge (Revisions) was justified in directing that the matter of assessment be reconsidered after taking the account books into consideration. In doing so, he had not exceeded the bounds of law or in any manner caused harassment to the assessee. Our answer to the question, therefore, is in the affirmative in favour of the department. We assess Rs. 100 as costs payable by the assessee to the Commissioner of Sales Tax.;