M. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) All these revision petitions under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act have been preferred by the Commissioner of Trade Tax against a common order dated April 15, 1995, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Agra, whereby it partly allowed the dealer's appeal and, upholding the order dated September 16, 1994, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) whereby the latter had set aside the assessments and remanded the cases to the assessing officer for a fresh decision in accordance with certain directions, gave some more directions to the assessing officer. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the dealer-respondent. The dispute was whether the dealer, M/s. Ishwar Industries Ltd. , was engaged in the business of mining and was liable to pay tax on the sale of materials taken out of the mines. Its case was that it did not actually carry on mining operations nor did it sell any materials and that it had assigned its mining rights to another concern, M/s. Ishwar Mining and Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. , Jhansi, by executing a power of attorney in its favour and that it was the said M/s. Ishwar Mining and Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. , that was excavating the materials from the mines and selling the materials obtained therefrom and was also paying sales tax on its sales. The assessing officer had not accepted this contention and had made assessments for the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 and had levied penalties under section 15a (1) (g) of the Act for assessment years 1993-94, 1992-93, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1989-90. Against the orders passed by the assessing officer the dealer-respondent preferred nine appeals to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who vide his order dated September 16, 1994, allowed the same and setting aside the order remanded the matters back to the assessing officer for fresh decision after making enquiries on the various points detailed in the order. The dealer-respondent went to the Tribunal in second appeal and the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) but gave some more directions indicating the line of the enquiries. The Commissioner of Sales Tax had raised no grievance against the order of remand passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial ). Learned Standing Counsel contended that revisionist is aggrieved by the direction No. 6 contained in the order of the Tribunal in which the Tribunal has observed that if, the assessing officer finds that in respect of the mines in the name of M/s. Ishwar Industries Ltd. , the records of M/s. Ishwar Mining and Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. , contains the entries of the material excavated from the mines and the said M/s. Ishwar Mining and Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. , has paid taxes in respect thereof then no liability of tax be imposed on M/s. Ishwar Industries Ltd. , Lalitpur. As already stated the proceedings are for levy of sales tax and the contention of the present dealer-respondent was that it did not carry on any business of excavation and sale of materials itself and had assigned its right by power of attorney to M/s. Ishwar Mining and Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. , and it was this latter dealer who actually excavated the materials and sold them and was paying tax. In such circumstances the Tribunal's directions cannot be found fault with as the same does not mean that in case the present respondent is found to be actually carrying on any business attracting levy of taxes under the Act even then no action be taken against it. The direction of the Tribunal is limited in its scope and is legally correct. For the above reasons, I do not find any force in these revision petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. Petitions dismissed. .;