R. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant, M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. , has filed the present revision against the order dated June 9/ 12, 2000 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench I, Moradabad, in second appeal no. 204 of 1999 (1992-93 ). ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present revision are that the applicant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar, chemicals, etc. For the assessment year 1992-93 an ex parte assessment order was passed on March 8, 1996 against which the applicant had filed appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). The said appeal was allowed by order dated September 7, 1996 and after setting aside the assessment order, the assessing authority was directed to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law in the light of directions contained therein. It appears that the applicant was not satisfied with the order dated September 7, 1996 and preferred second appeal under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, again an ex parte assessment order was passed on August 28, 1997 by the assessing authority in compliance of the order dated September 7, 1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). The applicant once again filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Act against the order dated August 28, 1997. During the pendency of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal vide order dated October 28, 1998 decided the appeal filed by the applicant against the order dated September 7, 1996 and confirmed the order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) with some modification. When the appeal filed by the applicant against the order dated August 28, 1997 came up for hearing before the Deputy commissioner (Appeals), the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the said appeal as having become infructuous in view of the order of the Tribunal dated October 28, 1998. The said order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on November 28, 1998. The said order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on November 28, 1998. Subsequently, an application under Section 22 of the Act was filed by the applicant seeking rectification of the aforesaid order dated November 28, 1998 on the ground that assessment order be declared non est in view of the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal on October 28, 1998. The Deputy commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated February 8, 1999 allowed the application and declared the assessment order dated August 28, 1997 to be non est. It appears that the Commissioner of trade Tax filed an application under Section 22 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and also preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal against the order dated February 8, 1999. The Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner and had set aside the order dated February 8, 1999. It had further held that the assessment order dated August 28, 1997 does not become non est. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri Rajesh Kumar assisted by Shri N. C. Gupta learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B. K, Pandey learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessment order passed on August 28, 1997 does not become non est inasmuch as the assessing authority was duty bound under law to pass assessment order in compliance of the directions given by the Tribunal in its order dated October 28, 1998 passed in second appeal no. 16 of 1997 (1992-93 ). ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the Tribunal by its order dated october 28, 1998 had upheld the order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)but had given certain additional directions. The assessing authority had passed the assessment order on August 28, 1997 in compliance of the directions given by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated September 7, 1996. The said order did not take into consideration the directions given by the Tribunal in the order dated October 28, 1998. Thus, the Deputy commissioner (Appeals) had rightly annulled the said order in the application filed under section 22 of the Act vide order dated February 8, 1999. The said order did not take into consideration the directions given by the Tribunal in the order dated October 28, 1998. Thus, the Deputy commissioner (Appeals) had rightly annulled the said order in the application filed under section 22 of the Act vide order dated February 8, 1999. However, further directions ought to have been given by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the assessing authority to pass fresh assessment in the light of order of the Tribunal dated October 28, 1998, as the assessment order dated August 28, 1997 which was based on the direction, directions given by the Deputy commissioner (Appeals) contained in the order dated September 7, 1996 disappeared when the tribunal while deciding the appeals against the order dated September 7, 1996 gave some additional directions. I am supported in my view by the decision of the division Bench of this court rendered in the case of Sher Ali Khan v. Prescribed Authority 1978 ALJ 1189. ( 6 ) UNDER Section 10 of the Act the Tribunal has power to set aside and direct the assessing authority to pass fresh order for such further enquiry as may be specified. The assessing authority is bound under law to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The assessing authority is directed to pass fresh assessment order. Thus the revision succeeds and is allowed. .