JUDGMENT T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. - The assessment years with which the original petition is concerned are 1981-82 and 1982-83. The petitioner had been assessed to tax for five years, 1980-81 to 1984-85 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the Act) against which the petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. These appeals were allowed in part, and the matter remitted to the assessing authority with a direction to amend the assessment, as indicated in paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the appellate order, a copy of which is exhibit P1. We are concerned with the observations in paragraph 12 of exhibit P1. Therein, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dealt with the petitioner's claim for non-liability for tax under section 5A of certain purchases. According to the petitioner, the goods in question had been subjected to tax earlier and therefore, the purchases by him were not liable to levy under section 5A. But the petitioner had not substantiated his claim with any supporting material. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was inclined to grant him a further opportunity to produce evidence to establish that the goods had already suffered tax at the hands of his sellers. It was, therefore, observed in paragraph 12 that exemption under "single point goods purchased withe bills will be allowed if proved". 2. Evidently these observations in paragraph 12 of exhibit P1 were intended to be implemented with opportunity to produce the bills. Else there was no scope for the observation that the exemption will be allowed if proved, or for a remit for that purpose. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted with the further direction in the final paragraph of exhibit P1 "to amend the assessment as indicated in paragraphs 9, 11, 12, and 13". 3. The effective implementation of the observations in paragraph 12 necessarily postulated an opportunity to the petitioner to produce his purchase bills for verification by the assessing authority, to ascertain whether he was entitled to the non-liability claimed. The assessing authority, however, amended the orders of assessment without any notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity to produce his evidence to establish his case. His claim for non-liability stood rejected. 4. The petitioner was aggrieved by the revised orders so passed in relation to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The assessing authority, however, amended the orders of assessment without any notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity to produce his evidence to establish his case. His claim for non-liability stood rejected. 4. The petitioner was aggrieved by the revised orders so passed in relation to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. He sought rectification of these orders under section 43 of the Act in the belief that they had been passed by mistake without notice and without opportunity to him to produce evidence. The petition was rejected by the order, exhibit P4. The petitioner challenged the common revised order of assessment (exhibit P2) in appeals, exhibits P5 and P6, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected them as not maintainable by his order, exhibit P7. He stated that there was no provision in the Act for an appeal against "the modified" order of assessment. Petitioner challenges exhibit P2 (in so far as it relates to the years 1981-82 and 1982-83) and exhibit P7. I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 5. Section 34 of the Act provides for an appeal against any order of assessment passed under section 17 of the Act. There is no limitation or restriction therein, that a revised or modified order of assessment cannot be subject to challenge. An appeal against such an order is maintainable, though the grounds available, or the relief, if any, liable to be granted, in the appeal may be restricted, by the limited nature of the power exercised by the assessing authority on reassessment, amendment, or modification of the assessment. In such an appeal, the appellate authority can only examine whether the directions, or relief, given in the earlier appellate order have been duly complied with, or given, by the assessing authority, in the revised or modified assessment. Matters concluded, expressly or constructively, by the order of remand cannot be agitated afresh before the very same appellate authority in the appeal against the fresh assessment. If the earlier appellate order was one of open remand (without any concluded findings) the entirety of the fresh order of assessment becomes subject to appeal afresh. If the previous order postulated further opportunity to be afforded to the assessee for any purpose, failure to afford such opportunity will itself vitiate the revised assessment. If the earlier appellate order was one of open remand (without any concluded findings) the entirety of the fresh order of assessment becomes subject to appeal afresh. If the previous order postulated further opportunity to be afforded to the assessee for any purpose, failure to afford such opportunity will itself vitiate the revised assessment. The assessee is entitled to challenge the revised or modified order as one not passed in compliance, or in accordance, with the appellate order and, therefore, requiring appellate interference. 6. This is a case where the revised assessment was challenged as one ignoring the observations in, and the benefits conferred by exhibit P1. The contention was that the appellate order, exhibit P1, has not been complied with. If so, the revised assessments stand vitiated for want of opportunity to prove the claim for exemption as envisaged in paragraph 12 of exhibit P1. That is good enough to challenge the orders of revised assessment in appeal. That is what the petitioner did in this case. It could not be said that when non-compliance with the appellate order is alleged and the assessee has been denied a benefit to which he was entitled in law, the appellate authority should fold its hands and disclaim jurisdiction, purportedly under section 34 of the Act. He was not justified in taking the view he did in exhibit P7. The finding in exhibit P7 that the revised order exhibit P2 was not appealable is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The rejection of the petitioner's appeals at the threshold as not maintainable was not legal and was an abdication of his jurisdiction by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Exhibit P7 has, therefore, to be quashed. 7. Since exhibit P2, in so far as it deals with the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, is one passed without affording the opportunity envisaged by exhibit P1, it has also to be quashed to that extent. 8. I, therefore, quash exhibit P2 in so far as it relates to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, as also exhibit P7. The assessing authority, namely, the first respondent, shall afford opportunity to the petitioner to prove his claim for non-liability of single point goods as envisaged in paragraph 12 of exhibit P1, and complete the reassessment for these two years within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The assessing authority, namely, the first respondent, shall afford opportunity to the petitioner to prove his claim for non-liability of single point goods as envisaged in paragraph 12 of exhibit P1, and complete the reassessment for these two years within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is allowed as above. Petition allowed.