Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. - In this reference arising out of an order passed by this Court under Sec.33 (2) of Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter in short the Act only) the following questions of law have been fallen for consideration : "1. Whethere on the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal was justified in law in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to claim concessional rate of tax, for sales to the extent of Rs.18.91.723/- during the assessment year 1957-58 made to registered dealers and said to be supported by c forms on account of clerical mistakes committed in filing the return claiming the said amount showing the said sales next counting year for the reason that earlier remand order was a bar in the way of the petitioner for making the claim ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the revised return filed by the petitioner before the assessing authority after the remand for the same reason ?" 2. This reference relates to the assessment period 1-7-1957 to 31-3-1958 relating to an assessment made respecting the liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter in short the c. S. T. Act only) During this period the assessee had affected sales to the tune of Rs.10,90,911/- to registered dealers and claimed concessional rate of tax on the sales but his claim on this count was disallowed to the extent of Rs.1,13,034/- on the ground that the sales to this extent were not supported by c Forms. The assessee also claimed adjustment of credit notes worth Rs.7,37,688/- but the same was also rejected on the ground that the claim related to the previous period of assessment which has become final. After unsuccessful appeal the assessee preferred a revision before the Tribunal. At the revisional stage, it was urged on behalf of the assessee that keeping in view the provisions contained under Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Central Sales Tax (Bihar) Rules, 1957 the lower authorities should not have disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs. J,13,034/-representing the sales to registered dealers since the supportive c Forms have been duly filed partly before the Assessing Officer and partly before the appellate Authority. It was contended that the delay in filing was caused because the purchasing dealers had failed to furnish the same promptly. J,13,034/-representing the sales to registered dealers since the supportive c Forms have been duly filed partly before the Assessing Officer and partly before the appellate Authority. It was contended that the delay in filing was caused because the purchasing dealers had failed to furnish the same promptly. In respect of the credit notes, the submission of the assessee before the tribunal was that the credit notes in fact related to the periods in question and the lower athorities had erred in rejecting the claim by treating the same to be for previous periods. On identical disputes two more revisions were preferred by the assessee relating to the periods of assessment 1958-59 and 1959-60. On consideration of these facts and submissions the Tribunal while allowing all the revisions in part by passing a consolidated order, remanded the cases for re-examining the aforesaid claims only made on behalf of the assessee. The operative part of the order of the Tribunal reads as under : "in these circumstances, the applications in revisions are allowed in part and the cases are remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the declarations produced in these cases and to allow such claims of the applicant if these appear to be in order. The Assessing Officer should also verify if the claims of the applicant for adjustment of credit notes were made for the respective years of assessment and if the they are older those claims of the applicant should be allowed. " 3. When the matter was taken up by the Assessing Officer for examination of the aforesaid claim of the assessee pursuant to the remand order by the Tribunal the assessee filed a revised return putting forward an additional claim of Rs.18.91.723/- said to be representing the sales affected to registered dealers during this period. The claim was disallowed on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the remand order. The assessee pursuaded his cause for additional claim up to revisional stage before the Tribunal but failed on the ground that the additional claims were not entertainable in view of the limited remand. Under these facts, the above referred questions have fallen for our reconsideration. 4. Mr. The assessee pursuaded his cause for additional claim up to revisional stage before the Tribunal but failed on the ground that the additional claims were not entertainable in view of the limited remand. Under these facts, the above referred questions have fallen for our reconsideration. 4. Mr. A. B. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has submitted that once a case is remanded to the Assessing Officer then it is incumbent upon him to entertain a revised return and consider all the claims which are made before him irrespective of the fact whether the order of remand is for a fresh assessment or for a limited scrutiny and decision and specified points alone. His submission is that even in the case where the appellate or revisional authority sends the case back to the Assessing Officer for re-examining even a particular claim of the assessee in fact it is for the purpose of redetermmation of the tax liability of the assessee because the fresh determination even in a limited area will have an impact on the final computation of the tax payable by the dealer. Therefore according to him, a remand by higher authorities may be open or restricted in terms, but their orders have always to be treated as confering a jurisdiction on the assessing authority to entertain all claims preferred by the dealer even if some of those were new in nature. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Mittal and Company V/s. State of Bihar, (1969) 24 STC 418 ; Narse-palli Oil Mills V/s. The State of Mysore, (1973) 32 STC 599 ; The State of andhra Pradesh v Sri Ruma Luxmi Satyanarayana Rice Mill, (1975) 35 STC 601 (611) ; Electro Diesel (P.) Ltd. V/s. State Tamil Nadu, (1975) 36 STC 589 ; and Jaora Sugar Mills Ltd. V/s. Union of India and another (1982) 134 itr 385. He also Placed Reliance on Sec.14 (2) of the Act and rule 9 (2) (a) of the Central Sales Tax (Bihar) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter in short bihar Rules ). 5. He also Placed Reliance on Sec.14 (2) of the Act and rule 9 (2) (a) of the Central Sales Tax (Bihar) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter in short bihar Rules ). 5. On the other hand learned Advocate-General placing reliance on a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Chittarmal Na-ain Das v. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, 24 STC 451, submitted that if the appellate authority restricted to a specific area for making enquiry and passing fresh orders in consequences thereof, it is not open to the Sales tax Officer to redetermine the entire turnover of the assessee. 6. Section 14 (2) of the Act and Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Bihar Rules read as under ; "section 14 (2 ).- If a dealer having furnished a return under sub-section (1) discovers any omission of wrong statement therein he may furnish a revised return in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority at any time before the said authority passes order determining the amount of tax, if any payable by the dealer for the period for which the return has been furnished : provided that no such revised return shall be taken into consideration if, upon information which has come into his posstssion the prescribed authority is, for reasons to be recorded in wilting, satisfied that the return originally furnished was deliberately false or that it was furnished with intent to defraud the State Government of its revenue. " Rule 9 (2) (a) "a registered dealer who claims to have made a sale to another registered dealer shall, in respect of such claim attach to his return in Form I the portion marked original of the Declaration received by him from the purchasing dealer or shall submit the said declaration at any time before final assessment, if the assessing authority so permits : provided that when goods are delivered in instalments against one purchase order and a declaration in Form c covering the entire order is furnished alongwith the return for one period declarations need not be furnished alongwith the return for subsequent period in respect of the same transaction if reference to previous return and declaration is given in a statement furnished with subsequent returns. Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, the expression final assessment shall be deemed to include any fresh assessment made by the assessing authority as a result of such direction by the appellate authority ; (b) The selling dealer shall also maintain, serially and chronologically, a complete account in a register in Form 1i-A in respect of the Forms of Declaration received by him from the purchasing dealers ; (c) The assessing authority may, in its discretion, also direct the selling dealer to produce for inspection the portion of the Declaration marked "duplicate". 7. Section 14 (2), quoted as above, authorises a dealer to file a revised return under the circumstances enumerated thereinbefore assessment is completed pursuant to his earlier return. Similarly Rule 9 (2) (a)authorises a dealer to submit the statutory declarations at any time before the final assessment is made either originally or pursuant to the direction of the appellate authority. The decisions referred to by Mr. Sinha are also to the effect that if the assessing authority is seized with the assessment proceedings either pursuant to a re-assessment proceeding or on an open remand from the appellate or revisional authority then his jurisdiction is wide open to consider each and every aspect of assessment convas-sed before him and he can pass a fresh final order of assessment in respect of each of the items concerning assessment. 8. Before pronouncing on the main issue, I may deal with the above referred statutory provisions relied upon by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, which according to me has no beating on the issue involved. The reason being that the said provisions relate to making of final assessment in such cases where either in view of the statutory provisions or pursuant to a direction by the higher authorities, the assessing authority is clothed with the jurisdiction to pass a fresh order of assessment traversing through the entire range of jurisdiction. In other words, the said provisions will apply where the jurisdiction is not subscribed by any restriction or limitation. Similar is the situation with the decisions relied upon by Mr. Sinha. In other words, the said provisions will apply where the jurisdiction is not subscribed by any restriction or limitation. Similar is the situation with the decisions relied upon by Mr. Sinha. In none of those decisions the question that once an assessment is partially set aside and remanded only for a limited enquiry and decision to the Sales Tax Officer still, then, the Officer concerned can proceed to enlarge his jurisdiction treating the appellate or revisional order as an order of open remand. Therefore, in my opinion, none of the decisions can be said to have any relevance in the present case. Moreover, some of the decisions cited by Mr. Sinha can be said to have ben impliedly repealed in view of a recent Supreme Court Judgment in the case of C. I. T. V/s. M/s. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. , AIR 1993 SC 43 . While dealing with the question as to whether on a reopening of the assessment on the ground of escapement of income in certain respects, the entire previous assessment order stands set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh, their Lordships in paragraph 39 has held that: "what is set aside is thus, only the previous under assessment and not the original assessment proceedings. An order made in relation to the escaped turnover does not effect the operative force of the original assessment, particularly if it has acquired finality, and the original order retains both its character and identity. . . . . . . . . The assessee cannot claim recomputation of the income or redoing of an assessment and be allowed a claim which he either failed to make or which was otherwise rejected at the time of original assessment which has since acquired finality. " 9. Now coming to the present case, the order of assessment in question has acquired its finality in tespect of all the items except in relation to the declarations and credit notes which were produced during the assessment proceeding and were required to be re-examined pursuant to the revisional order and, if found in order, consequential relief was to be allowed. The operative portion of the revisional order passed by the tribunal, as quoted above, is very specific that the revisions were allowed in part to the extent indicated and therefore, in relation to other parts of the assessment order, those had acquired their finality. The operative portion of the revisional order passed by the tribunal, as quoted above, is very specific that the revisions were allowed in part to the extent indicated and therefore, in relation to other parts of the assessment order, those had acquired their finality. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in holding that it was not competent on the part of the assessing Officer to traverse beyond the jurisdiction which was conferred on him pursuant to revisional order. He had no other jurisdiction to exercise either under any statutory provision or any other supposed inherent authority. 10. Dealing with similar facts and the question involved in this case, in the case of Chittarmal Narain Dass, (supra) Patnak, J. has held that "here it cannot be said that the remand order directed the Sales Tax officer to make a fresh assessment and left it open to him to redetermine the entire turnover of the assessee, "similar view has been taken in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax V/s. Babu Lai Parmanand, (1982) 49 STC 181 . 11. Jn view of the discussions made above both the questions referred to this Court are answered in affirmative and against the assessee with cost assessed at Rs.1,000/- payable by the assessee to the State. Let a copy of this Judgment be transmitted to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. q