JUDGMENT OM PRAKASH, C.J. – Heard counsel for the parties. 2. These three revisions relating to the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 involve a common controversy and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. These revision petitions are filed by the department against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Respondent herein claimed himself to be an erstwhile partner of the firm Keyem Traders. His case was that he retired from the firm with effect from April 1, 1985. In support of his contention he produced a release deed before the Appellate Tribunal stating that only the remaining partners continued in the firm and he (the respondent) retired from the firm with effect from April 1, 1985. He, therefore, contended that no liability to pay sales tax could be fastened upon him for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. 4. Before the Tribunal, the department contended that 30 days' notice was a requisite condition before intimating retirement and that no such notice was given by the respondent and, therefore, his plea that he retired from the firm would not succeed. The case of the respondent was that requirement of 30 days' notice was not mandatory but, directory in nature. 5. The contention of the respondent was that he having retired from the firm, was entitled to notice before any such liability could be fastened on him and that notice served upon the firm alone was not sufficient. He further contended that no notice having been given to him, assessment made on the firm treating him to be a partner was a nullity. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the release deed produced before it for the first time required consideration, especially in view of the fact that no notice as such was served on the respondent. The Tribunal, therefore, remitted the case back to the assessing officer to consider the release deed produced for the first time before it. The Tribunal, while remitting the case to the assessing officer, observed as under : "We have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. On a perusal of the evidences produced before us, by the appellant, it is seen that the appellant had retired from the firm on April 1, 1985 and a release deed has been executed to this effect. On a perusal of the evidences produced before us, by the appellant, it is seen that the appellant had retired from the firm on April 1, 1985 and a release deed has been executed to this effect. The assessing officer has initiated proceedings to complete the assessment on the firm and the firm was represented by the partners. On a perusal of the records, there is no evidence to show that the appellant was a party to any of these proceedings ............ When we consider the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant did not get an opportunity to explain his case before the authorities below. The firm, in this case, has not filed any appeals against the assessments completed for the relevant years. The crucial point to be decided in these appeals is whether the appellant had retired from the firm with effect from April 1, 1985. As per the evidences produced before us which has been accepted as additional evidences in the appeal for the assessment year 1985-86, there is evidence to the effect that the appellant had retired from the firm with effect from April 1, 1985. ........ But, the fact remains that the appellant could not explain his case before any of the authorities below since he had not been served with any of the notices issued to the firm. When we consider the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidences produced before us, we find force in the contention raised by the appellant. But, it is not proper on our part to give a finding based on the evidences produced by the appellant before us, without giving a chance to peruse the evidences by the assessing officer. So, we are of the view that the matter is to be considered by the assessing officer to fix the liability of the appellant, if any, on the assessment completed on the firm after April 1, 1985, i.e., the date of retirement of the appellant from the firm. For this limited purpose, these cases are remitted back to the assessing officer. ........... The assessee is at liberty to produce the entire evidences like partnership deed, release deed and such other evidences to substantiate the contention of the appellant." 6. For this limited purpose, these cases are remitted back to the assessing officer. ........... The assessee is at liberty to produce the entire evidences like partnership deed, release deed and such other evidences to substantiate the contention of the appellant." 6. From the observations reproduced above, it is amply clear that no final finding was recorded by the Appellate Tribunal and the matter was left open to the assessing officer to consider the limited question whether the respondent retired from the firm with effect from April 1, 1985 and if that is so, whether such liability could be fastened upon him for the years in question. 7. This being the state of affairs, we are of the considered opinion that no question arises for our decision. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case we see no illegality in the case being remitted to the assessing officer on the limited question. 8. In the result, all the three revision petitions fail and are dismissed with the observations that the assessing officer would be at liberty to take any view on merits of the question whether the respondent retired from the firm with effect from April 1, 1985 and to consider all aspects relating to the plea of retirement from the firm and the effect thereof. Petitions dismissed.