JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The present revision is directed against the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 64 of 1998 relevant to the assessment year 1990-91. The dealer - opposite party is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of M.S. ingot. On the basis of information received from the Department of the Central Excise, proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was initiated. The dealer - opposite party did not participate in the said proceeding. The assessing officer consequently by the order dated May 5, 1997 was of the opinion that the turnover of the dealer - opposite party has escaped the assessment and passed an ex parte reassessment order under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Saharanpur. The said appeal has been allowed by the first appellate authority without entering into the merit of the case on the short ground that a further opportunity of hearing be afforded to the dealer - opposite party. Strangely enough, the order of the first appellate authority was challenged by the dealer by way of second appeal No. 64 of 1998 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the order under revision has allowed the appeal and set aside order passed under section 21 of the Act. In the memo of revision the following questions of law have been sought to be raised : 1. Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to quash the order of the first appellate authority, who has remanded the case on the request of the opposite - party dealer ? 2. Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to set aside the tax assessed, despite the adverse material available on record indicates otherwise ? Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the reassessment order was passed ex parte. In appeal on the request of the dealer - opposite party, the first appellate authority afforded another opportunity of hearing by setting aside the reassessment order and restoring the matter back to the assessing officer. There was absolutely no justification for the dealer - opposite party to file the second appeal before the Tribunal. In appeal on the request of the dealer - opposite party, the first appellate authority afforded another opportunity of hearing by setting aside the reassessment order and restoring the matter back to the assessing officer. There was absolutely no justification for the dealer - opposite party to file the second appeal before the Tribunal. The subject-matter of the second appeal before the Tribunal was as to whether the remand order is justified or not ? If for one reason or the other, the Tribunal was of the view that the remand order passed by the first appellate authority is not justified, or some other and further directions are required, the Tribunal should have passed the order accordingly. But it could not assume the jurisdiction of the assessing authority and decide the case on merits. Instead of remanding back the matter to the assessing authority, the Tribunal has decided the case on merits. The said exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal is beyond scope of the subject-matter of the appeal. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated July 31, 1999/August 4, 1999 is set aside and the matter is restored back to the assessing authority who will hear and decide the reassessment proceeding in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by the first appellate authority. No order as to costs.