JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The dealer - opposite party carries on the business of manufacturing and selling flour, suji, etc. The assessing authority for the assessment order in question, i.e., 1991-92 levied trade tax on the net turnover while granting the benefit of Notification No. 4519 dated August 29, 1987 on the purchase of wheat. The assessment order was challenged in Appeal No. 916 of 1997 before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by the dealer - opposite party. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) after rejecting the contention of the dealer - opposite party held that the dealer is also liable to pay tax on the atta, maida, suji and was wrongly granted exemption by the assessing authority in exercise of power conferred on it under section 9(3)(a)(2) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed but the net turnover was enhanced and additional tax liability to the tune of Rs. 2,20,612.95 was created by the first appellate authority. The said order has been set aside by the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 112 of 1998 on the short ground that the appellate authority had no power to enhance the tax liability. In other words, it was held by it that in exercise of power under section 9 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, the tax cannot be enhanced while hearing the appeal. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the court in the case of Anand General Store v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1987] 66 STC 349; [1987] UPTC 481. The following three questions of law have been sought to be raised in the memo of revision : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified to exempt the purchase of wheat for a flour mill, which was not a roller flour mill, whereas the Notification No. ST-II-4519/x dated August 29, 1987 provides exemption only for the purchase of wheat to roller flour mill ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in exempting the purchase of wheat made from general sellers other than F.C.I., whereas Notification No. ST-II-4519/x dated August 29, 1987 provides exemption on the purchase of wheat from F.C.I. 3. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in exempting the purchase of wheat made from general sellers other than F.C.I., whereas Notification No. ST-II-4519/x dated August 29, 1987 provides exemption on the purchase of wheat from F.C.I. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the first appellate authority, viz., Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) has no jurisdiction to consider and adjudicate upon the matters not raised before him by the dealer, whereas it has been held by the honourable High Court in Saru Smelting Pvt. Ltd., Meerut v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1997] UPTC 204, that the appellate authority is not confined to that subject-matter of appeal preferred by a dealer ? However, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is not necessary to go into other questions and the revision can be decided on the short ground that Anand General Store's [1987] 66 STC 349; [1987] UPTC 481 is not a good law and it has been held by this court subsequently that the first appellate authority has jurisdiction to enhance the tax liability. Shri P. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. Considered the respective submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this court in Saru Smelting Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1997] UPTC 204. This court after following the decision of the apex court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. [1994] 94 STC 410; [1994] UPTC 859 wherein similar provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act came up for consideration before the apex court, has held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner shall have power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment order, penalty or both. The Supreme Court held that the aforestated two Acts have adopted the provisions relating to the appeals in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It has been held that the power of the first appellate authority is co-extensive and wider than the power of the assessing authority. The Supreme Court held that the aforestated two Acts have adopted the provisions relating to the appeals in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It has been held that the power of the first appellate authority is co-extensive and wider than the power of the assessing authority. In other words, it has been held that while hearing the appeal, the first appellate authority has power to enhance the tax amount. In view of the above discussion, it is not necessary to go into the other questions sought to be raised by the learned standing counsel. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of this court in the case of Saru Smelting Pvt. Ltd. [1997] UPTC 204 the order of the Tribunal is undefensible. The Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of the first appellate authority and holding that the first appellate authority had no power to travel beyond the subject-matter of the appeal before it. The revision, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated October 15, 1998 is hereby set aside and the second appeal filed before it stands dismissed. The revision is allowed. No order as to costs.