M. C. AGARWAL, J. These two revision petitions by the dealer are directed against a common order dated October 13, 1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Trade Tax Tribunal in Commissioners second appeals Nos. 276 and 277 of 1997 for the assessment year 1994-95 pertaining to assessments under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Surya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3. The question of law involved in this revision petition is whether the Trade Tax Tribunal while hearing a second appeal preferred by the Commissioner under section 10 (2) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has the power to entertain a dispute raised by the Commissioner that does not arise out of the first appellate order. 4. The dealer is a manufacturer of iron and steel. There was a survey at the business premises of the assessee when some incriminating material was recovered. The dealer had disclosed a gross turnover (U. P.) at Rs. 1,29,42,946 admitted to be taxable at the rate of 4 per cent and another turnover of iron and steel amounting to Rs. 1,56,22,747 admitted to be taxable at the rate of 2 per cent for the purposes of Central sales tax. It had declared a turnover of Rs. 3,12,080 which was admitted to be taxable at the rate of 4 per cent. Because of a survey the assessing officer rejected the books of account and the returned turnover and estimated an additional turnover at Rs. 3,28,64,200 taxable at the rate of 4 per cent under the U. P. Trade Tax Act. The turnover of Rs. 1,56,22,747 was not disturbed. As regards the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act the assessing officer estimated an additional turnover of Rs. 30 lakhs taxable at the rate of 8 per cent. 5. Against the aforesaid assessments the dealer preferred appeals to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it did not challenge the quantum of turn-over and contested only the rate of tax on certain parts of the turnover. The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that out-of the turnover of Rs. 3,28,64,200 a part thereof to the extent of Rs. 5. Against the aforesaid assessments the dealer preferred appeals to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it did not challenge the quantum of turn-over and contested only the rate of tax on certain parts of the turnover. The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that out-of the turnover of Rs. 3,28,64,200 a part thereof to the extent of Rs. 1 crore was taxable at the rate of 2 per cent while the remaining was taxable at the rate of 4 per cent. In relation to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that an additional turnover of Rs. 30 lakhs was taxable at the rate of 4 per cent as against 8 per cent assessed by the assessing officer. Against these orders the Commissioner of Trade Tax preferred appeals to the Tribunal challenging the aforesaid orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). In preferring the appeals, the Commissioner also set up grounds challenging the estimate of the concealed turnover as made by the assessing officer and praying that the estimate made by the assessing officer being very low the assessment of concealed turnover be enhanced. Before the Tribunal it was contended that the assessees appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) were restricted to the rates of tax only and, therefore, the Commissioner could not challenge the estimate of turnover as made by the assessing officer in the appeals preferred by him and the Tribunal had no power to entertain any such plea from the Commissioner. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal and allowing the Commissioners appeals it set aside the assessment orders and remanded the matter to the assessing officer for redetermination of the turnover in the light of the discussion made and directions given in the remand order. It is this view of the Tribunal that is challenged in the present revision petitions. Appeals against the assessment order have been provided for in section 9 of the Act. The relevant portions of section 9 (1) and (3) are as under : " (1) Any dealer or other person aggrieved by an order made by the assessing authority, other than an order mentioned in section 10-A or sub-section (6) of section 13-A, may, within thirty days from the date of service of the copy of the order, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed. " " (3) The appellate authority may, after calling for and examining the relevant records and after giving the appellant and the Commissioner of Sales Tax a reasonable opportunity of being heard or as the case may be, after following the procedure prescribed under sub-section (1-A) - (a) in the case of an order of assessment or penalty, - (i) confirm or annul such order; or (ii) vary such order by reducing or enhancing the amount of assessment or penalty, as the case may be, whether such reduction or enhancement arises from a point raised in the grounds of appeal or otherwise; or (iii) set aside the order and direct the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after such inquiry as may be specified; or (iv) direct the assessing authority to make such inquiry and to submit its report within such time as may be specified in the direction or within such extended time as it may allow from time to time, and on the expiration of such time the appellate authority may, whether the report has been submitted or not, decide the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the preceding sub-clauses; or (b) in the case of any other order, confirm, cancel or vary such order. " 6. It is trite law that under section 9 of the Act the Revenue has no right of appeal and it is only a dealer or other person aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority who can file an appeal under section 9 of the Act. The dealer-revisionist had filed appeals to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under section 9 of the Act and it is conceded that the Commissioner of Trade Tax had no right of appeal against the assessment orders. If the assessment order was legally erroneous or factually improper the Commissioner could himself revise the order in exercise of powers under section 10-B of the Act. 7. Appeals to the Trade Tax Tribunal is provided for in section 10 (2) of the Act. If the assessment order was legally erroneous or factually improper the Commissioner could himself revise the order in exercise of powers under section 10-B of the Act. 7. Appeals to the Trade Tax Tribunal is provided for in section 10 (2) of the Act. The relevant portions of which is as under : " (2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by an appellate authority under section 9 other than an order referred to in sub-section (4-A) of that section or by the Revising Authority under section 10-B, or by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under sub-section (2-B) or sub-section (3) of section 4-A, or by a decision given by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 35 or by a direction given under the proviso to sub-section (6) of section 13-A may, within ninety days from the date of service of the copy of such order, decision or direction on him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. " 8. It is under section 10 (2) of the Act that the Commissioner has a right to challenge the order of the first appellate authority passed under section 9 of the Act and, therefore, as a necessary consequence the right of an appellant under section 10 (2) is restricted to challenge the order under section 9 of the Act and not to revert back to the assessment order and challenge those parts of the assessment order that were not the subject-matter of appeal under section 9 of the Act. In the present case as the facts stated above show the quantum of the turnover was not the subject-matter of appeal preferred by the dealer to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under section 9 of the Act and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in exercise of power under section 9 of the Act did not relate to the quantum of turnover. Therefore, the Commissioner while preferring an appeal under the provision of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act could not challenge the assessment order that was passed under section 7 of the Act and the appeal had to be restricted to the ground covered by the appellate order passed under section 9 of the Act. 9. Therefore, the Commissioner while preferring an appeal under the provision of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act could not challenge the assessment order that was passed under section 7 of the Act and the appeal had to be restricted to the ground covered by the appellate order passed under section 9 of the Act. 9. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mithan Lal and Sons 1978 UPTC 467, a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the erstwhile provision of section 10 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, which provided for a revision to the revising authority against the order of the first appellate authority, held that in a case where in the first appeal the dealer merely challenged the estimate of turnover and the appeal was dismissed the Commissioner could not challenge the appellate order in revision and raise a point regarding the rate of tax that was not involved in the first appeal. The court observed that the Commissioner had filed the revision against the, appellate order. The appeal was filed by the assessee and it was confined to the estimate made by the Sales Tax Officer. A revision filed against this order would necessarily be confined to matters dealt with in the appellate order. There was no dispute before the appellate authority as to the correct rate of tax applicable to cosmetics from October 1, 1965 onwards, it was not open for the revisional authority to scrutinise this question on a revision filed against the appellate order. 10. While preferring the appeal before the Tribunal in the present cases, the Commissioner was invoking the powers of the Tribunal to enhance the amount of assessment. Such power is conferred on the Tribunal by virtue of the explanation to section 5 of the Act but it has been held by this Court that this power is not a general power enabling the Tribunal to enhance the assessment in any case it liked and it can be exercised only if there is an appeal by the Commissioner against the reduction of the assessment by the first appellate authority. The matter was considered by me in detail in Hari Prasad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1995 UPTC 215. In that case the dealer had preferred first appeal before the Assistant Commissioner who had partially reduced the estimated turnover. The matter was considered by me in detail in Hari Prasad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1995 UPTC 215. In that case the dealer had preferred first appeal before the Assistant Commissioner who had partially reduced the estimated turnover. The dealer did not feel satisfied and preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The Commissioner did not prefer any appeal against the reduction of the turnover by the first appellate authority, i. e. , Assistant Commissioner (Judicial ). The Tribunal not only dismissed the assessees appeal but restored the turnover as assessed by the assessing officer. It was held that this could not be done. In arriving at this conclusion reliance was placed on a judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Vijaya Stores [1978] 42 STC 418; 1979 UPTC 861 in which the honourable Supreme Court while dealing with the identical provision of section 39 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act held that having regard to the entire scheme of section 39 the Tribunal had no jurisdiction or power to enhance the assessment in the absence of any appeal or cross-objection by the department. I, therefore, held that while disposing of the assessees appeal the Tribunal could not enhance the turnover as assessed by the first appellate authority. 11. It is important to bear in mind that the powers of the Tribunal are not as wide as those of the first appellate authority under section 9 of the Act. A division Bench of this Court in Madan Studio, Varanasi v. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) [1975] 36 STC 282; 1975 UPTC 58 had held that even under section 9 of the Act the first appellate authority had no jurisdiction to enhance the assessment. It was thereafter that sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Act was amended and the power of enhancement was provided to be exercised even if the enhancement did not arise from the point raised in the grounds of appeal. No such power has been given to the Tribunal under section 10 of the Act and even the explanation to sub-section (5) thereof does not say that the Tribunal can go beyond the provisions of sub-section (2) and make an order beyond its jurisdiction which had to be restricted to the challenge of the order passed under section 9 of the Act. 12. 12. It is important to bear in mind that if in the case like the present one the Commissioner can challenge the assessment order itself before the Tribunal it would create anomalous situation. The Commissioner has no right of appeal against an assessment, order. On the other hand, he has been conferred revisional jurisdiction to set right the errors and improprieties in the assessment order. It is unimaginable that though the law does not allow the Commissioner to challenge the assessment order in the first appeal he can do so by preferring a second appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on Smt. Keshari Devi Agarwal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1984 UPTC 481 in which it was observed that the Tribunal under section 10 (5) of the Act has vast powers including that of varying the assessment by enhancing it and, therefore, the Tribunal could take into consideration a ground which was not considered by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority if there was material to bear out that ground factually. It may be mentioned that the observation is of a general character and in that case the Tribunal had not enhanced the turnover but had, on the other hand, reduced the same and in relation to the plea of the rejection of the books of account it took the facts found at the time of certain surveys into account. The contention of the assessee before this Court was that that survey having not been considered by the authorities below the Tribunal could not act upon it and this contention was rejected. This judgment, therefore, does not determine the controversy that arises in the present revisions and there is nothing therein that could be of any help to the Revenue. Reliance is also placed on Jain Industries & Trading Corporation v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 76 STC 44 (All.); 1989 UPTC 1. This was a case in which the propriety of an order of remand by the first appellate authority came up for consideration before this Court and it was held that where the assessing officer failed to make proper investigation looking into the relevant materials procured during the survey the first appellate authority could remand the matter to the assessing officer. Thus, this authority too does not deal with the power of the Tribunal. 14. Thus, this authority too does not deal with the power of the Tribunal. 14. Reliance is also placed on Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC ). This case related to the power of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and the honourable Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant relief to the assessee on a new ground taken for the first time before it. In that case the assessee had been claiming development rebate in respect of certain expenditures involved in the replacement of certain machinery. The claim was rejected and was the subject-matter of the appeal before the Tribunal where the assessee for the first time claimed that the expenditure incurred on the replacement was of a revenue nature. The honourable Supreme Court held that the Tribunal rightly entertained such a claim. It was observed that whether the allowance was admissible under one head or the other the subject-matter for the appeal remained the same. Therefore, this authority too is not of any help in the present matter. 15. Lastly, the learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC ). This authority like the earlier one deals with the question of the power of the Tribunal to entertain a new question of law arising from the facts found by the Income-tax authorities and having a bearing on tax liability of the assessee. It was held that the Tribunal had the power to allow a new ground to be raised. 16. The subject-matter of the appeal and the grounds of appeal are often confused. The subject-matter is one thing and the grounds raised in respect of that subject-matter is another thing. Therefore, if the subject-matter of the appeal is not changed a new ground may be permitted to be taken up; but where a matter has been concluded and could not be raised in the appeal it cannot be allowed to be raised by setting up an additional ground. 17. In view of the above discussions I hold that while preferring an appeal under section 10 of the Act the Commissioner could not challenge the assessment order and the appeal could be filed only against the findings recorded and the order made by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under section 9 of the Act. 17. In view of the above discussions I hold that while preferring an appeal under section 10 of the Act the Commissioner could not challenge the assessment order and the appeal could be filed only against the findings recorded and the order made by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under section 9 of the Act. The Commissioners appeals to the extent of challenging the turnover as determined by the assessing officer was not maintainable in law and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such ground nor it had any jurisdiction to deal with that matter under any provision of section 10 of the Act. 18. These revision petitions are, therefore, allowed and setting aside the Tribunals order dated October 13, 1997, it is ordered that the Commissioners appeals in so far as the challenge to the quantum of turnover as determined by the assessing officer is concerned shall stand dismissed as not maintainable and Tribunal shall, however, decide the other controversies raised in the appeals arising out of the order under appeal. The revisionist shall get its costs of these revision petitions from the respondent that I assess at Rs. 3,000 (rupees three thousand) (one set ). Petitions allowed. .