ORDER A. M. SAPRE, J. - The decision rendered in this writ shall govern disposal of another writ petition being W.P. No. 1097 of 2004, because both these writs are filed by the same petitioner and it involves the same point. The challenge in this writ is to a remand order dated May 29, 2004, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, in Revision No. 50 of 2004 (State) and Revision No. 21 of 2004 (Entry Tax) (annexure P12) which in turn set aside the assessment order dated November 24, 2003, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (annexure P7). Heard Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the impugned revisionary order is a remand order whereby the revisionary authority has infact allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and set aside the ex parte assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer. It is also not in dispute that after setting aside the assessment order the case is sent back to assessing authority for fresh inquiry in the light of the observations made by the revisionary authority in the impugned order. In a case of such nature when no liability is yet fixed or determined, when the factual inquiry is directed for examining the real nature of transaction between the petitioner and the two traders, vis-a-vis school boys then no case for interference is called for at this stage by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that when certain findings were recorded by the revisionary authority in petitioner's favour then in such circumstances, there was no need to remand the case or that revisionary authority should have itself decided the case on merits rather than to remand the case. I do not agree. In the first place, the assessment being in the nature of ex parte where despite notice, the petitioner did not participate, a case for remand for further factual inquiry was called for. Secondly, it is the discretion of revisionary authority whether to remand the case for further inquiry or to record a factual finding. Thirdly, in the facts of this case when the revisionary authority in its discretion considered proper to direct holding of fresh factual inquiry then such direction cannot be said to be either illegal or totally without jurisdiction or against any provision of law. Thirdly, in the facts of this case when the revisionary authority in its discretion considered proper to direct holding of fresh factual inquiry then such direction cannot be said to be either illegal or totally without jurisdiction or against any provision of law. After all, the petitioner is bound to be granted an opportunity to prove the real nature of transaction which is being made subject-matter of assessment. Indeed, in order to record a clear finding, it is necessary to first understand the modus operandi of the transaction. All this can be proved when all parties to the transaction are noticed, and documents exchanged inter se parties, nature of payment made are examined, etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner then placed reliance on two decisions reported in Dimple Overseas v. Collector of Customs [1995] 80 ELT 10 (SC) and Kanyakaparameswari Trading Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1983] 54 STC 135 (AP) and contended that no case for the remand was made out. I have already dealt with this issue supra and negatived the submission. These decisions lay down general principle of law whereas facts of the case in hand make the case distinguishable. In this view of the matter, no reliance can be placed on these decisions. In my view, therefore, the revisionary authority did not commit any mistake/error in remanding the case to assessing officer. Petition is thus found to be totally devoid of any merit. It is dismissed in limine. Let the proceedings be completed by assessing officer within three months. A copy of this order be sent to concerned assessing officer (R-1) by the State counsel as also by Registry.