ORDER SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. This writ petition is filed against the assessment order G.I. No. 2062/2003-04/APGST dated March 31, 2007 passed by the first respondent herein. The case of the petitioner is that it is a proprietary concern owned by Khambatta Family Trust, Ahmedabad, carrying business in manufacture and sale of soft drink concentrate. During the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 the petitioner sold goods to M/s. Rasna Private Limited (for short, "RPL"), which is an independent company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the transactions of the petitioner with RPL are principal-to-principal transactions. While so, the first respondent herein made provisional assessment dated August 6, 2003 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 (April to June 2003) holding that in view of intimate connection between the petitioner and the RPL coupled with the circumstance that entire sales of the petitioner had been effected to RPL, the sale transactions fall within the mischief of "expanded sub-section (d)(iv) of section 2(1)(s) of the APGST Act". The Commercial Tax Officer, first respondent, accordingly levied tax on the differential turnover between the turnover of the petitioner and the RPL. According to the petitioner the said order passed by the first respondent is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. It is the further case of the petitioner that against the said orders of assessment the petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) who by his order dated September 27, 2003, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise & Cus. [2002] 143 ELT 244 held that Rasna Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, is distinct from the petitioner, a proprietary concern owned by the family trust and the theory of related person has no application insofar as the petitioner's transactions with RPL was concerned and, hence, section 2(1)(s)(iv) of the APGST Act has no application. Accordingly, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner set aside the assessment and allowed the appeals vide order dated September 27, 2003. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner (CT) initiated revisional proceedings under section 20 of the APGST Act alleging that section 2(1)(s)(d)(iv) of the Act was rightly invoked by the CTO in the instant case and accordingly proposed to set aside the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) and restore the order of the CTO vide show-cause notice dated November 19, 2003. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner (CT) initiated revisional proceedings under section 20 of the APGST Act alleging that section 2(1)(s)(d)(iv) of the Act was rightly invoked by the CTO in the instant case and accordingly proposed to set aside the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) and restore the order of the CTO vide show-cause notice dated November 19, 2003. The petitioner filed detailed objections for the same but, it is stated, the Additional Commissioner on an incorrect appreciation of the factual and legal scenario, overruled the objections and passed revisional orders dated February 9, 2004 setting aside the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Against the said orders dated February 9, 2004, the petitioner filed further appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 223 and 224 of 2004. The Appellate Tribunal, while taking note of the legal position postulated by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Atic Industries Ltd. [1984] 17 ELT 323, held that in order to bring within the purview of "related person", the dealer as well as the alleged related person must be shown to be having interest in the business of the other and the burden of establishing the same is on the Revenue. Having held so, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the assessing authority so as to afford an opportunity to the Department to establish the theory of related person, if any. The grievance of the petitioner is that the CTO did not follow the directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal and though it was no longer necessary for him to consider whether Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 (SC) has relevance for the purpose of invoking clause (iv) of the Explanation to section 2(1)(s) of the Act and all what was required to consider whether the parameters set out in Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 (SC) are present in the petitioner's case, it totally erred in observing that the Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 (SC) has no relevance to the case on hand. Thus, it is stated that the reassessment order passed by the first respondent is not in compliance with the directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal and is liable to be set aside. The first respondent herein filed counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is a proprietary concern owned by "Khambatta Family Trust", Ahmedabad. Thus, it is stated that the reassessment order passed by the first respondent is not in compliance with the directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal and is liable to be set aside. The first respondent herein filed counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is a proprietary concern owned by "Khambatta Family Trust", Ahmedabad. The petitioner being owned by the said Trust has taken another registration in the name of M/s. Rasna Enterprises Pvt. Limited (RPL) which is constituted by the family members of the Trust. In effect, the petitioner and the RPL are run by same family but under two separate registrations to avoid sales tax. It is further stated that the decision of the Supreme Court on which reliance was placed by the petitioner has no application to the facts of the case. The tax levied treating the sale turnover of the RPL as the first sales turnover of the petitioner is in accordance with the provisions of section 2(1)(s)(iv) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The first respondent passed reassessment order under section 24A of the APGST Act as per the directions of the Tribunal and in accordance with the provisions of section 2(1)(s)(iv) of the APGST Act as the sale effected by the petitioner is to be taken as having effected sales to a related person and the same does not suffer from any infirmity. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as in the reply and additional reply affidavits. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the CTO being a subordinate authority to the Appellate Tribunal, instead of following the direction of the Appellate Tribunal to follow the findings of the Supreme Court in Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 and to complete the final assessment which are overdue for completion, he has given his own finding that the Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 (SC) has no relevance in the context and thus passed the impugned order totally on an erroneous consideration of the matter and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes supported the impugned order and contended that the same needs no interference. In this case the issue is whether the Pioma Industries, i.e., the petitioner herein and M/s. Rasna Private Limited are related or they are two independent concerns in order to bring them within the purview of section 2(1)(s)(iv) of the APGST Act. After considering the various case law on the aspect, the Appellate Tribunal disposed of the petitioner's appeals as follows : "From the ratio of the above decision it follows that in order to bring within the scope of the amended provisions of section 2(1)(s)(iv) of the APGST Act the Revenue is required to establish the case as indicated in Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 by the honourable Supreme Court. In precise, the ingredients that need to concur are as follows : The dealer sought to be brought under the amended provision must have interest in the business of the dealer alleged to be the related person, and in turn, the dealer alleged to be the related person to the appellant should have interest in the business of each other as enlightened by the honourable Supreme Court which means mutuality of interest. It is not sufficient if the dealer sought to be brought under the amended provisions of the definition 'turnover' is having the interest in the business of the dealer alleged to be the related person. Such related person also shall have interest in the business of the dealer sought to be brought under section 2(1)(s)(iv) of the Act. It is not ascertainable from the material papers made available at the time of hearing, the quantum of interest that the appellant herein is having in the business of M/s. Rasna Pvt. Limited and vice versa. While the facts remain that the entire sales of M/s. Pioma Industries were effected to M/s. Rasna Pvt. Ltd., the fact of sale of more than 3/4th of production to a distributor is not sufficient to establish a case under section 2(s)(iv) of the APGST Act. The fact of "related person" as enlightened in Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 (SC) is also to be satisfied. The fact of "related person" as enlightened in Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 (SC) is also to be satisfied. Therefore, it is felt imperative in the interest of equity and justice to remit the matter back to the assessing authority who shall follow the findings of the honourable Supreme Court rendered in Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 (SC) and complete the final assessment which are overdue for completion." Thus, the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal makes it very clear that in order to bring within the scope of the amended provisions of section 2(1)(s)(iv) of the APGST Act the Revenue is required to establish the case as indicated in Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal has also noted down the ingredients that need to concur on this aspect. It has been further made clear that the dealer sought to be brought under the amended provision must have interest in the business of the dealer alleged to be the related person and in turn the dealer alleged to be the related person to the petitioner - appellant should have interest in the business of each other, which means mutuality of interest. The Tribunal further held that it is not sufficient if the dealer sought to be brought under the amended provisions of the definition "turnover" is having interest in the business of the dealer alleged to be the related person and that such related person also shall have interest in the business of the dealer sought to be brought under section 2(1)(s)(iv) of the Act. The Tribunal opined that it was not ascertainable from the material papers made available at the time of hearing as to the quantum of interest that the petitioner - appellant is having in the business of M/s. Rasna Pvt. Limited and vice versa and that the fact of more than 3/4th of sales to a distributor is not sufficient to establish a case under section 2(1)(s)(iv) of the APGST Act and that the fact of related person as enlightened in Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 (SC) is also to be satisfied. Thus, the Tribunal thought it very much necessary that the findings of the Supreme Court in Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 are required to be followed in the matter and accordingly remitted the matter to the assessing authority with a direction to follow the findings of the Supreme Court in Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323 and to complete the final assessment. But, as could be seen from the impugned order dated March 31, 2007, it is apparent that the first respondent - assessing authority did not follow the said directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal. The impugned order dated March 31, 2007 of the first respondent is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated March 31, 2007 passed by the first respondent and remit the matter to the first respondent with a direction to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with reference to the findings of the Supreme Court in Atic's case [1984] 17 ELT 323, as directed by the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Counsel for the petitioner is given liberty to produce necessary material to satisfy the first respondent on the point whether the two concerns viz., Pioma Industries and Rasna Private Limited come within the purview of clause (iv) of the Explanation to section 2(1)(s) of the Act or not. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and remanded. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above.