Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel.
(2.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Tax Board dated 10.11.1997 whereby the Tax Board held that the remand order passed by the first Appellate Authority namely Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was illegal and thus allowed the appeal of the assessee. Hence the revenue is before this Court in the revision petition.
(3.) The Assessing Authority i.e. CTO, Anti Evasion, Ajmer initially passed assessment order on 24.1.1994 U/s. 10(c) read with Section 19(3) of the Act wherein on the basis of survey dated 19.6.1991 the CTO, Anti Evasion found that purchases of Tilli to the extent of Rs. 20,84,134.38 made by the assessee through commission agents was sold by the assessee without payment of any purchase tax and, therefore, purchase tax to the extent of Rs. 93,119/- was imposed upon the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who remanded the case back to the regular Assessing Authority instead of CTO, Anti Evasion, Ajmer who originally passed the assessment order dated 24.1.1994 holding that the CTO, Anti Evasion, Ajmer had failed to prove any case of evasion against the assessee and, therefore, he did not acquire the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order because the Anti Evasion authorities acquire jurisdiction to pass assessment order only if they have detected the evasion on the part of the assessee as per Commissioner circular dated 18.2.1992 (S. No. 868B) read with relevant notification dated 23.10.1967 (S. No. 135) and dated 19.7.1975 (S. No. 1016 of J.K. Jain Vol.2) and dated 20.11.1996 (S. No. 1070D), therefore, instead of remanding the case back to the same Anti Evasion authority the learned DC (Appeals) remanded the case back to the regular Assessing Authority. The assessee went in second appeal before the Tax Board against the said order and Tax Board allowed the assessee's appeal and held that remand order was illegal because once the DC (Appeals) found that there was no case of evasion made out against the assessee, the learned DC (Appeals) could not have remanded the case back to the regular Assessing Authority for re- enquiry into the matter.;