JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J. - These two revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated May 9, 2006 relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The applicant was registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and was carrying on the business of buying and selling of PVC pipes and pipe fittings. For the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, applicant had filed the quarterly returns and disclosed the total turnover at Rs. 14,53,70,841.41 and Rs. 15,96,47,733.36 respectively. The applicant had not disclosed any taxable turnover and had not admitted any liability of tax. For both the assessment years, assessing authority, issued the notices to the applicant to appear. Show-cause notices were also issued requiring the applicant to show cause. The applicant could not file the list of the purchases before the assessing authority nor could get those purchases verified. The applicant could not appear before the assessing authority and could not produce the books of account and also could not file the reply to the show-cause notice. Having left with no option, assessing authority passed the ex parte orders and for the assessment year 1999-2000 estimated the taxable turnover at Rs. 20 crores and for the assessment year 2000-01 estimated the taxable turnover at Rs. 35 crores. It appears that the applicant had filed the applications under section 30 of the Act for recalling of the ex parte assessment orders but the same had been rejected. However, we are not concerned about the said orders. Against the aforesaid two ex parte orders, applicant filed two appeals before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax Range - I, Ghaziabad. Copy of the grounds of appeal is annexure No. 2 to the revision. Perusal of the grounds of appeal reveals that the applicant mainly pleaded that the show-cause notices have not been served upon the applicant and the assessment orders have been passed without giving proper opportunity. Before the first appellate authority, applicant had filed the list of the purchases. On the list being furnished, appellate authority asked the assessing authority to get the list verified from the various assessing authorities about the correctness of the details mentioned in the list. It appears that despite the time being granted on several occasions, report of the assessing authority could not be received. On the list being furnished, appellate authority asked the assessing authority to get the list verified from the various assessing authorities about the correctness of the details mentioned in the list. It appears that despite the time being granted on several occasions, report of the assessing authority could not be received. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated December 28, 2005 allowed the appeals and set aside the ex parte orders and remanded back the matter to the assessing authority to pass assessment orders afresh. It may be mentioned here that the applicant has also filed the appeals against the orders of the assessing authority rejecting the applications under section 30 of the Act. Since the matter was remanded back to the assessing authority with the direction to pass assessment orders afresh, the appeals against the orders rejecting the application under section 30 of the Act have been rejected being infructuous. Being not satisfied with the orders of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), applicant filed two separate appeals before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad. The Tribunal by the impugned order, dismissed both the appeals. The Tribunal has justified the remand of the case by the first appellate authority. Further it appears that during the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, a letter from the Assistant Commissioner, Hapur bearing letter No. 1058 dated March 6, 2006 had been received, in which it was informed that the purchases shown by the applicant from M/s. R.S. Steel Centre, G.T. Road, Pilkhua is incorrect inasmuch as the said party had sold the entire goods to one party namely, M/s. Aditya Trading Company, Rawalpindi Garden, Ghaziabad and had not made any sales to M/s. Shrishti Traders, Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad. The said letter was brought to the notice of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that before relying upon such information, the opportunity to explain the said letter is necessary and accordingly, justified the remand of the case. Heard Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had made the entire purchases within the State of U.P. and the pipe and pipe fittings being liable to tax at the point of manufacturer or importer, applicant is not liable to tax on its sales. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had made the entire purchases within the State of U.P. and the pipe and pipe fittings being liable to tax at the point of manufacturer or importer, applicant is not liable to tax on its sales. He further submitted that once in appeal purchase list giving the complete details of the parties, their registration number, quantity of goods purchased and the amount have been furnished and the first appellate authority has asked for the report under section 9(3)(a)(iv) of the Act then whether the report has been received or not, first appellate authority was bound to decide the appeals on merit and should not remanded back the case to the assessing authority. The effect of the argument is that once the report is sought under section 9(3)(a)(iv) of the Act even if the report is not submitted, appellate authority is ceased with the jurisdiction to remand the case. He further submitted that the Tribunal has illegally considered the letter of the Assistant Commissioner, Hapur dated March 6, 2006 which has been received after the decision in the appeals by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). According to him such material cannot be considered and made basis for justifying the remand of the case without giving opportunity to the applicant and to this extent the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. The learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. Section 9(3) of the Act reads as follows : "Section 9(3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. Section 9(3) of the Act reads as follows : "Section 9(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 (1A) - (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" Section 9(3)(a)(iv) of the Act says that the appellate authority can direct the assessing authority to make such enquiry and to submit its report within such time as may be specified in the direction, or within such extended time. The appellate authority may, whether the report has been submitted or not, decide the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the preceeding sub-clauses. Preceding sub-clause (3) provides that appellate authority may set aside the order and direct the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after such enquiry as may be specified. Thus, the appellate authority has a power to set aside the order and remand the case even after the issue of direction to the assessing authority to make such enquiry and submit its report. Thus, the appellate authority has a power to set aside the order and remand the case even after the issue of direction to the assessing authority to make such enquiry and submit its report. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant that once the report is sought under sub-clause (iv) appellate authority is ceased with power to set aside the order and remand back the case is misplaced and cannot be accepted. In the present case, admittedly applicant could not appear before the assessing authority. He could not furnish the list of the purchases and could not produce the books of account for verification of the said purchases and failed to prove that the purchases were made within the State of U.P. from the registered dealers. To set aside the ex parte orders, applicant itself moved the applications under section 30 of the Act. The grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority reveals that the main grievance of the applicant was that the ex parte orders were passed without giving proper opportunity, inasmuch as the show-cause notices have not been served upon the applicant in accordance to rule 77. Thus, if the appellate authority has allowed the appeals and set aside the ex parte orders and directed the assessing authority to pass the assessment orders afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing, I do not find any error in the said orders. In fact, the appellate authority has accepted the plea raised by the applicant. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the Tribunal should have not considered the letter of the Assistant Commissioner, Hapur dated March 6, 2006 without giving the opportunity to the applicant, cannot be accepted. The letter of the Assistant Commissioner, Hapur dated March 6, 2006 is a part of the record. It has not been taken adverse by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal would have taken the said letter adverse to the applicant without giving opportunity to it, the grievance of the applicant would be justified. The Tribunal has justified the remand of the case by observing that the applicant should be given opportunity to explain the said letter, in which I do not see any error. For the reasons stated above, both the revisions have no merit and are liable to be dismissed. In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed. The Tribunal has justified the remand of the case by observing that the applicant should be given opportunity to explain the said letter, in which I do not see any error. For the reasons stated above, both the revisions have no merit and are liable to be dismissed. In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed. The applicant is directed to appear before the assessing authority on August 21, 2006. It is made clear that no fresh notice will be issued to the applicant. The assessing authority on that day, start the hearing of the case or may fix any other date to complete the assessment. The assessing authority is directed to provide proper opportunity to the applicant before passing the assessment orders and the applicant is directed to co-operate in the assessment proceedings. The aforesaid direction will be relevant, in case if the assessment proceedings have not already taken up and completed.