ORDER Shantanu Kemkar J. - By this petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the common order dated November 3, 2003 passed by the second respondent, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore in Revision No. 26 of 2003 and in Revision No. 30F/03/ET. Briefly stated, the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of formaldehyde, hexamine and other fine chemicals. It is duly registered dealer under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and deemed to be a registered dealer for entry tax. During the course of the assessment proceedings for the period April 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000 the first respondent, assessing authority, alleged that the petitioner had effected inter-State purchase of high speed diesel from the depots of Indian Oil Corporation situated outside the State of M.P. and had effected the sale of it within the State of M.P. without recording such transactions in the regular books of account. Vide order dated March 31, 2001 the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 1,47,94,021 in respect of the said purchases and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,32,50,000 on the petitioner invoking section 69 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act on the ground of alleged concealment of the said trading. The petitioner filed revisions before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore. The revisions filed by the petitioner were allowed vide order dated September 26, 2001 (annexure P12) and the revisional authority remanded the matter to the assessing officer for making the enquiry for establishing the petitioner's nexus with the alleged purchases by approving the petitioner's contentions in respect of following aspects : "(a) Particulars as to who had filled in the delivery order. (b) Particulars of the transportation of the goods. (c) Details about place of loading and delivery of the goods. (d) Details of the persons to whom the goods were delivered. (e) Particulars of the mode of payment. (b) Particulars of the transportation of the goods. (c) Details about place of loading and delivery of the goods. (d) Details of the persons to whom the goods were delivered. (e) Particulars of the mode of payment. (f) Detail of 'C' forms issued against the supply of goods and particularly the name and the designation of the person signing the same and also the 'C' form No. and the date." After the aforesaid remand order the assessing officer completed a fresh assessment and without going into the matter in the light of directions/observations made by the revisional authority in the order of remand vide its order dated December 30, 2002 levied tax and penalty on the petitioner holding that the petitioner failed to prove that he had no nexus with the alleged purchases. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner had again filed revision petitions against the fresh assessment order dated December 30, 2002. The said revisions have been dismissed by the impugned common order dated November 3, 2003. Hence this petition. The contention of the petitioner is that while remanding the matter to the assessing officer the revisional authority vide order dated September 26, 2001 made various observations and directed the assessing officer to decide the matter in the light of principles of law laid down in various decisions considered by it. In the circumstances it was incumbent upon the assessing officer to have decided the matter in the light of those directions/observations made by the revisional authority. However instead of following directions issued by the revisional authority the assessing officer has illegally shifted the burden on the petitioner to prove negatively that it has no nexus with the alleged purchases. According to the petitioner when this order of the assessing officer was challenged before the revisional authority in the second round of litigation the revisional authority has mechanically and arbitrarily rejected the revisions ignoring its earlier observations and findings. According to the petitioner though it was not obligatory upon it to have discharged the negative burden, still various details were obtained by it from the Indian Oil Corporation and the particulars of bank draft through which payments were made were also obtained and the said details were submitted before the revisional authority still the revisional authority merely on the basis of indent for delivery orders has illegally presumed that the purchases in question have been made by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the conclusion of the revisionary authority is contrary to the conclusion arrived at by it in earlier round of litigation. Thus according to the petitioner the impugned order of the revisional authority deserves to be quashed and the matter requires to be remitted to the assessing officer for redeciding the matter afresh. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner having not disclosed the transaction in its return and having not explained the alleged purchases of high speed diesel from Indian Oil Corporation the order of the assessment officer as well as the revisional authority need no interference. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned order and the earlier remanded order I find force in the contention of the petitioner. While remanding the matter to the assessing officer the revisional authority taking note of the various pronouncements of the Taxation Tribunal and the various High Courts' holding "that the burden of proving a fact lies upon a person who alleges existence of such facts, nobody is required to prove a negative fact. When the appellant had denied that the declaration form did not relate to him it was necessary for the assessing officer to investigate into the matter and prove that it related to him by examining the relevant witnesses and in the absence of any such proof the declaration cannot be presumed to have been related to the assessee. A nexus is to be established between the petitioner's accounts and trade conducted by the petitioner and if that has not been established the petitioner cannot be taxed on an increased turnover". In view of the aforesaid observations of the revisional authority the assessing officer was required to have inquired into the nexus and was required to prove the petitioner's nexus with the alleged inter-State purchases before holding the petitioner guilty of alleged inter-State purchases of high speed diesel. The impugned order without any proof of nexus of the petitioner with the alleged purchases could not have been affirmed by the revisional authority. In my considered view while passing the impugned order the revisional authority has totally ignored its earlier remand order. The assessing officer has also not decided the matter in accordance with the directions contained in the remand order passed by the revisional authority. Accordingly the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. In my considered view while passing the impugned order the revisional authority has totally ignored its earlier remand order. The assessing officer has also not decided the matter in accordance with the directions contained in the remand order passed by the revisional authority. Accordingly the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of the revisional authority as well as the order dated December 30, 2002 passed by the assessing officer deserves to be and are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the assessing officer, first respondent to pass fresh order keeping in view the order of remand passed by the revisional authority. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.