P. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) FOR the assessment year under consideration, assessment order under Rule 41 (7) was passed on April 7, 1988, books of accounts were accepted. However, subsequently on receipt of some information regarding purchase against form 3-B, notice under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax act (hereinafter called "the Act") was served. Order under Section 21 of the Act was passed on september 7, 1989. The assessing authority observed that the transactions were verifiable from the books of accounts. Notice under Section 21 was discharged. Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad, however, issued notice dated January 16, 1992 under section 10-B for revision of the order dated September 7, 1989 passed by the assessing authority on the ground that certain purchases against form III-B were made from Star Paper Mills Ltd. , saharanpur, which were not recorded by the dealer in the books of accounts or declared in the returns whereas purchases from Shivam International Traders, Saharanpur, were disclosed. The dealer furnished his explanation to the show cause. The Deputy Commissioner, however, levied tax of Rs. 3,15,000 on escaped turnover of Rs. 50 lacs and further directed that the assessee was liable to pay interest at the rate of 2 per cent from August 1, 1984. Aggrieved by the order of the deputy Commissioner, the dealer filed second appeal. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and by setting aside the order the Tribunal remanded the matter for rehearing by the Deputy commissioner after observation and directions made in the body of the judgment. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tribunal dated December 22, 1993, the dealer has filed the present revision. The sole point canvassed by Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist in support of the revision is that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 10-B and hence, the order of remand is bad. The crux of his submission is that the assessing authority, by order dated September 7, 1989 held that there was no adverse material against the dealer and, therefore, the notice was discharged and original order of assessment dated April 7, 1988 was allowed to stand. The crux of his submission is that the assessing authority, by order dated September 7, 1989 held that there was no adverse material against the dealer and, therefore, the notice was discharged and original order of assessment dated April 7, 1988 was allowed to stand. Submissions of Sri Agrawal are that once the notice was discharged there was no order under Section 21 and it is order under rule 41 (7) which was sought to be revised by the learned Deputy Commissioner. In the alternative he relying upon a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , lucknow v. Angan Lal Fakir Chand, Arhati 1996 UPTC 1087 argues that power of revision is not relatable to an order under Section 21 where the assessing authority merely discharges the notice on a finding that it is not a case of escaped assessment. Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing counsel has however, submitted that the language of Section 10-B does not admit of such an interpretation. He submits that the observations made by the Court in para 10 in the case of commissioner of Sales Tax v, Angan Lal Fakir Chand 1996 UPTC 1087 that order under section 21 was not revisable under Section 10-B of the Act were in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case. He further submits that at the time of assessment, the information of furnishing of 8 form III-B by the revisionist was on record which could not be considered by the assessing authority and, therefore, notice under Section 21 was issued. It is further submitted that the order passed by the assessing authority was without consideration of the material on record as it did not speak of the relevant material against the assessee, the explanation furnished by the assessee and what sort of verification was made by the assessing authority. ( 3 ) SECTION 10-B{1) of the Act provides that "the Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner, as may be authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification may call for and examine the record relating to any order (other than an order mentioned in Section 10-A) passed by any officer subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit". It is evident from the bare reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 10-B that the officer authorised to revise the order under Section 10-B has power to call for and examine the record relating to any order passed by a subordinate officer and on satisfaction as to the legality or propriety of such order, the revising authority is empowered to pass any order as he thinks fit. The provision of Section 10-B (1) cannot be interpreted to mean to exclude from the scope of the powers of the revising Commissioner order passed by the assessing authority under section 21. It is true that in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Angan Lal Fakir Chand 1996 UPTC 1087, this Court had observed in para 10 of the judgment as follows : "the power of the revision has been conferred under Section 10-B on the Commissioner and deputy Commissioner. Obviously, this is not relatable to an order under Section 21 where the assessing authority merely discharges the notice on a finding that it is not a case of escaped assessment. This power of revision was thus to be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner against the assessment order initially passed by the assessing authority. " ( 4 ) THE facts in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Angan Lal Fakir Chand 1996 UPTC 1087 were that the assessment order for the assessment year 1980-81 was passed on February 27, 1982. Notice under Section 21 was issued on March 25, 1982. Thereafter notice under Section 10-B was issued on August 20, 1988. The order under Section 10-B was passed by the Commissioner holding that certain purchases which the dealer had disclosed on behalf of the principal outside the State were actually purchases made by the dealer on his behalf on the ground that the assessee had not submitted any form C. The assessing authority while passing order under section 21 had observed in its order that the explanation furnished by the dealer was legally tested and it was found that the assessment was correct and it did not call for further assessment. Against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, second appeal was filed by the dealer, the Tribunal had found that necessary inquiry was conducted by the assessing authority. Against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, second appeal was filed by the dealer, the Tribunal had found that necessary inquiry was conducted by the assessing authority. The provisions of Section 21 confer power on the assessing authority to again assess the assessee within given period of limitation in case it is established that any sale effected by the assessee-opposite party on which tax was leviable had escaped assessment. The court on revision being filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax took the view that the Deputy Commissioner had given no reason in his order as to on what basis he concluded that the sales mentioned in his order were intra-State sales and not inter-State sales. The. court took the view that once the notice was discharged what Deputy Commissioner was to revise was the assessment order. The court had also held that under Sub-section (3) of Section 10-B of the Act, the power of revision could be exercised only within four years from the date of such order, i. e. , initial assessment. . . . . . . Apparently after limitation, the Deputy Commissioner could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 10-B. The four years period had expired on February 27, 1986 and in this case the notice under Section 10-B was issued on August 20, 1988. It was in these circumstances and facts that the above observations in para 10 of the judgment as have been reproduced above were made by the court. In the instant case before the court, the assessment order dated April 7, 1988 itself shows that the dealer had not disclosed any purchases against form III-B from Star Paper mills, Saharanpur. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the other hand shows that the information with regard to sales made against form III-B by the Star Paper Mills, saharanpur, was sent for verification by the Saharanpur sales tax authorities and such information was already on the record of assessment. The Tribunal in its order while partly allowing the appeal has observed that there was material on record of the assessment file regarding information sent by Star Paper Mills, Saharanpur, that the appellant had purchased paper against form III-B for a sum of Rs. 47,24,213 from Star Paper Mills. The Tribunal in its order while partly allowing the appeal has observed that there was material on record of the assessment file regarding information sent by Star Paper Mills, Saharanpur, that the appellant had purchased paper against form III-B for a sum of Rs. 47,24,213 from Star Paper Mills. In view of this information, the discharge of the notice under Section 21 by the assessing authority by order dated September 7, 1989 was not justified. The Tribunal further held that by discharging the notice, the assessing authority had committed illegality and impropriety and hence the Deputy commissioner (Administration) had jurisdiction to revise the order dated September 7, 1989 passed under Section 21. The order of remand was passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the explanation of the dealer was that he had given form III-B to the dalal and perhaps the dalal had given form III-B to Star Paper Mills and false entries of sale made to the present dealer were made. It was also represented on behalf of the dealer before the Tribunal that no opportunity to look into the books of accounts of Star Paper Mills and to cross-examine was afforded. The tribunal had observed in its order on various grounds that the objections raised by the dealer required further investigation after giving opportunity to the appellant. On the other hand, perusal of the order dated September 7, 1989 passed by the assessing authority under Section 21 of the Act would disclose that this is not an order in the eye of law. There is no mention in the order as to what was the information, when it was received and how the turnover escaped assessment. It is not stated in the order as to what was the explanation of the dealer to the notice under Section 21 and how verification of the explanation of the dealer was made by the assessing authority and how it reached to a conclusion that no adverse material was available against the dealer. It is an admitted fact that in his return and at the time of passing of the assessment order, the dealer had not disclosed any purchase from Star Paper Mills, Saharanpur. It is an admitted fact that in his return and at the time of passing of the assessment order, the dealer had not disclosed any purchase from Star Paper Mills, Saharanpur. On the other hand, 8 form III-B which were issued to the revisionist were produced by the Star Paper Mills at the time of assessment and the assessing authority at Saharanpur had sent the same for verification to the assessing authority at Ghaziabad. Submission of Sri Agrawal is that it is not shown as to when these forms were sent whereas the case of the dealer was of complete denial and that he had not at all made purchases from Star Paper Mills nor he had issued declarations in form III-B to Star Paper Mills. On the other hand, Sri B. K. Pandey, has pointed out that these informations were on the assessment record. It would be seen that it has not been disputed at any stage that the informations were not on assessment record. It is true that if the informations were received after passing of the order dated September 17, 1989 or for that matter even after issue of notice under section 21, the Commissioner on the basis of such informations could not have revised order dated September 7, 1989 on the ground of such material unless the assessing authority had issued notice in respect of such information under Section 21 of the Act. This may be examined at the time of passing order under Section 10-B by the revising authority when the matter is heard by the revising authority pursuant to the order of remand passed by the Tribunal or by the assessing authority, as this Court is of the view that the Commissioner instead of examining the material himself ought to have remanded the matter to the assessing authority after setting aside the order dated September 7, 1989. In any case in view of findings of facts as recorded above, it is difficult to hold at this stage that after the order discharging notice under Section 21 was passed by the assessing authority there remained nothing to be revised by the Deputy Commissioner or by invoking jurisdiction under Section 10-B, the Commissioner had actually usurped the powers under Section 21, There was apparent illegality and impropriety in the orders passed by the assessing authority while discharging the notice under Section 21 as the facts disclose that no inquiry at all was made by the assessing authority in respect of alleged purchases made against form III-B from Star Paper Mills, Saharanpur. It was thus the illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the assessing authority which was sought to be revised by the Deputy commissioner. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for further examining the matter and to decide after giving the dealer opportunity in respect of the objections raised by the dealer. Here, to my mind, the Tribunal has committed error. It is well-settled that the revising authority is empowered to look into illegality and impropriety of the order passed by subordinate authority in the light of the material which is already on record. It has no authority to obtain further material and hold inquiry about the reliability or otherwise of such material brought on record during inquiry. Sri Pandey has vehemently submitted that the revising authority on being satisfied of the illegality or impropriety committed by subordinate authority while passing any order may pass such order as it thinks fit and this empowers the revising authority to pass an order of assessment also. In my view, if an assessment order or an order of reassessment is passed by the assessing authority and certain material which was already there on record at the time of passing of the order of remand or order of reassessment, and as such material escaped consideration of the assessing authority then power lies with the assessing authority under section 21 to pass an order after complying with the provision of Section 21. However, if the material has already been considered by the assessing authority and illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the assessing authority is disclosed then the revising authority may correct such error by revising the order of assessment or the order of reassessment. In the instant case as further inquiry is directed which may bring on record, some more material to test the correctness of the information or the explanation submitted by the dealer. This would mean bringing some more material on record and examining it which is not the scope of the exercise of revisional power by the revising authority. Such power of holding inquiry is vested in the assessing authority or the appellate authority which is fact finding authority also. ( 6 ) IN view of the discussions made above, I am of the considered opinion that the order of remand passed by the Tribunal was justified and the Commissioner had powers in the facts and circumstances of the present case to revise the order dated September 7, 1989 passed by the assessing authority. However, the Tribunal has committed error in remanding the matter to the deputy Commissioner with a direction to hold further inquiry and to this extent the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The revision, therefore, is partly allowed. ( 7 ) THE order of the Tribunal so far as remanding the matter for further consideration is concerned is upheld. The order of the Tribunal remanding the matter to the revising authority is, however, set aside and it is directed that the matter shall be remanded to the assessing authority to pass appropriate order after complying with the directions given by the Tribunal. .