ORDER V. K. SINGHAL, J. - The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer in respect of empty bottles which are sold along with country liquor. While framing assessment order under section 10 on October 16, 1980 the assessing authority applied the notification dated October 17, 1957 and has not levied tax on the sale of empty bottles. The notification dated October 17, 1957 was rescinded by the Government on November 25, 1970. The period in dispute is from July 1, 1970 to June 30, 1971. The notices for rectification were issued on August 28, 1982 and tax was levied on October 29, 1982. The appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that empty bottles were purchased from unregistered dealer was rejected and the Board of Revenue held that the notice issued is not in a prescribed form and, therefore, quashed the entire proceedings for rectification. Without considering the legality of the decision of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, I am of the view that the present matter is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of A.C.T.O. v. Ganganagar Bottle Supply Co. 1991 9 RTJS 213 in which it has been held by this Court that simply because the purchases have been made from unregistered dealer tax cannot be levied on the second or subsequent point. The finding which has been recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals that the bottles sold were purchased from unregistered dealer will not make the assessee liable for payment of tax because the tax is payable only at the first point and if the first point has already been exhausted and sale has been made at the second or subsequent point, then no liability of tax can be fastened on the assessee in the series of successive sales even if taken by interruption of unregistered dealer after a first sale is made by a registered dealer, then the second or subsequent sale by the registered dealer cannot be subjected to tax. It has neither been contended nor alleged that the bottles were imported from outside the State of Rajasthan. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has gone even to the extent that the sale of bottle along with the wine has not been proved. It has neither been contended nor alleged that the bottles were imported from outside the State of Rajasthan. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has gone even to the extent that the sale of bottle along with the wine has not been proved. The department has not challenged the findings before the Board of Revenue and in view of the fact that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court, I do not find any justification in interfering in revisional jurisdiction. The revision is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.