JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR, J. - Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 ("the Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated January 7, 2003 relating to the assessment year, 1990-91. The dealer/opposite party ("the dealer") was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of rice, oil, etc., and was also carrying on the business of food-grain, oil-seed, etc. During the year under consideration, dealer had made purchases of rice bran for Rs. 70,220.50 and mustard khali for Rs. 2,56,476. The assessing authority rejected the books of account on the basis of the seized documents found at the time of survey dated May 30, 1990 and estimated the turnover by way of best judgment assessment at Rs. 1,65,45,539. The assessing authority levied the tax on the purchases of rice bran and mustard khali treating the dealer as first purchaser. Being aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, dealer filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Gorakhpur. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Gorakhpur, vide order dated September 6, 1993 remanded back the matter to the assessing officer with certain directions to make the enquiry. First appellate authority has mainly remanded back the case to examine the seized documents which were found at the time of survey with reference to the explanation given by the dealer. The issue with regard to the taxability on the purchases of rice bran and mustard khali has not been adjudicated. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Gorakhpur, dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal in part and allowed the claim of exemption on the purchases of mustard khali being sold to solvent plant against form IIIB, though it has accepted that in exhibit No. 1, there was entry of Rs. 7 lacs relating to the suppressed purchases and stock of paddy of Rs. 2,60,000 was found less. The Tribunal has substantially reduced the turnover. Heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Vishwjeet, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the dealer-opposite party. 7 lacs relating to the suppressed purchases and stock of paddy of Rs. 2,60,000 was found less. The Tribunal has substantially reduced the turnover. Heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Vishwjeet, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the dealer-opposite party. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the matter was remanded back by the first appellate authority with the direction to make the inquiry in respect of the seized documents with reference to the explanation given by the dealer and the Tribunal was not justified in deciding the matter on merit. He submitted that the Tribunal has held that the order of the first appellate authority, remanding back the matter to the assessing authority is not justified on the ground that the entire documents were available before him and he should have himself enquired into the matter. If it was so, the matter should have been remanded back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merit instead of the Tribunal itself deciding the appeal on merit, adjudicating the issue relating to the quantum and adjudicating the other issues which have not been decided by the first appellate authority. He further submitted that having regard to the material of suppression found from the seized documents at the time of survey the estimate of turnover is patently arbitrary inasmuch as the Tribunal has not given any basis for the estimate of the turnover. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. I do not find any justification on the part of the Tribunal to adjudicate the issue on merit, when the order of the first appellate authority remanding back the case to the assessing officer was subject-matter of dispute. In case, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the remand of the case was not justified as the entire material was available before the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority should have himself looked into those material and made the enquiry, the Tribunal should have remanded back the matter to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merit, but the Tribunal has illegally proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merit and has illegally estimated the turnover. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that no basis has been given for the estimate of the turnover. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that no basis has been given for the estimate of the turnover. Moreover, when the first appellate authority had not adjudicated the issue relating to the taxability of the purchases of mustard khali sold against form IIIB, Tribunal still proceeded to decide the issue and has allowed the exemption. On the aforesaid facts, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh on merit adjudicating all the issues involved in the appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, in my view the order of the Tribunal is not justified and is liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merit and to adjudicate all the issues involved in the appeal. In case, if the first appellate authority feels that any further enquiry in the matter is required, it is open to him to seek the report from the assessing officer. In the result, revision is allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merit expeditiously in the light of the observations made above.