JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue) has referred the undernoted question of law for opinion of this Court : "Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in remanding the case for fresh assessment in exercise of its powers under section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts of file case are that the applicant is a registered dealer under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The applicant was assessed to tax for the financial year 1969-70. After the order of assessment, its premises were visited by the Flying Squad which resulted in reopening of the assessment under section 19(1) of the Act. The applicant was asked to pay tax on the turnover of Rs. 5,08,023 and in addition a penalty of Rs. 25,000. It preferred first appeal in which the escaped turnover was reduced by Rs. 1,00,000 and the amount of penalty was decreased to Rs. 5,000. In second appeal preferred by the applicant, the contention was made that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to pass order under section 19(1) of the Act when the notice was issued under section 18(4)(a) of the Act. It was therefore, contended that the order was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal accepted the contention and held that the proceedings under section 19(1) were of special nature. The opportunity of being heard required that allegations must be explained and reduced to writing so that the assessee is properly enabled to defend itself. The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction under section 18(4)(a) and under section 19(1) were of different nature. The notice was issued under section 18(4)(a) while the assessment was made under section 19(1). It was also held that a notice in form XVI was not liable to be converted to a case under section 19(1). Section 18(4)(a) pertains to best judgment assessment while section 19(1) relates to reopening of the assessment under the grounds enumerated thereunder. The Tribunal, therefore, quashed the order of assessment but remanded the case for assessment. It was also held that a notice in form XVI was not liable to be converted to a case under section 19(1). Section 18(4)(a) pertains to best judgment assessment while section 19(1) relates to reopening of the assessment under the grounds enumerated thereunder. The Tribunal, therefore, quashed the order of assessment but remanded the case for assessment. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the applicant filed the application before the Tribunal seeking statement of case and reference of question of law with reference to the order passed by the Tribunal on September 26, 1983, in Appeal No. 308-PBR/80, which was preferred by the applicant against the order dated July 17, 1980, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, in Appeal No. 32/79-80/State. 3. We have herd Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the non-applicant/department. 4. Section 19(1) confers the power to reopen the assessment where any sale or purchase of goods chargeable to tax has been under-assessed or has escaped assessment or assessed at a lower rate or any deduction has bean wrongly made therefrom. This power is exercisable after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after making such enquiry as considered necessary. 5. Section 18(4)(a) confers the power to the Commissioner to assess the dealer to the best of his judgment in case the registered dealer has not furnished returns in respect of any period by the prescribed date. 6. These two sections thus operate in different fields and are intended to serve different purposes in different situations. One is not the substitute of the other. 7. It is trite law that if an act is required to be performed in a particular manner, then it should be performed in that manner or not at all. In other words in the field of law matter and manner both have their own significance. When the Tribunal found that the order of assessment, in the absence of proper notice was without authority of law, it was required to annul the order of assessment and had no further jurisdiction to remand the case for further action. That should have been left to the authority to initiate the action, if not forbidden by law. AIR 1936 PC 253 (Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor) page 257 is pertinent. 8. That should have been left to the authority to initiate the action, if not forbidden by law. AIR 1936 PC 253 (Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor) page 257 is pertinent. 8. Burger C.J., of the American Supreme Court once observed : "A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and it is for the subordinate judiciary by its action and the High Court by its appropriate control to ensure it." 9. The question, as noted above, in our view and in conformity with the statement of the case, is required to be reformulated as under : "Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in remanding the case for fresh assessment in exercise of its powers under section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959 ?" 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Tribunal was not justified in remanding the case for fresh assessment in exercise of its inherent power under section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The proper exercise of the power was to set aside the assessment i.e., to annul the assessment and leave the matter at that. 11. There was no difficulty in adopting this course if the Tribunal had carefully read sections 19 and 19-A of the aforesaid Act. 12 In the circumstances we find that the order of remand was not proper and permissible under the law. We, therefore, answer the reformulated question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the applicant-assessee and against the non-applicant/department. 13. This reference application is answered accordingly but without any order as to costs. 14. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Tribunal under the seal of the Court and signature of the Registrar in terms of section 44(5) of the Act. Question reframed and answered in the negative.