JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta :- This order shall dispose of G.S.T.R. No. 6 of 2003 and G.S.T.R. No. 1 of 2003, as common questions of law and facts arise in both these cases. However, the facts are being extracted from G.S.T.R. No. 6 of 2003. The Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana vide its impugned order dated December 5, 2002, has referred the following questions of law for adjudication by this court : "(i) Whether Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) was an appropriate Assessing Authority for the respondent in view of the notification dated May 19, 1989 read with the definition of appropriate Assessing Authority under clause (c) of rule 2 of the Rules and whether Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) had concurrent jurisdiction to act as an Assessing Authority with the officer in whose circle the respondent was located and was competent to assess the respondent ? (ii) Whether the judgment of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Devi Dass Gopal Krishan v. State of Punjab [1973] 31 STC 536 was contrary to the judgment of the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Sarjoo Prasad Ram Kumar reported in [1976] 37 STC 533 and if not whether the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Devi Dass Gopal Krishan v. State of Punjab reported in [1973] 31 STC 536 could be ignored in view of judgment of the M.P. High Court in Pyarchand Keshrimal Porwal Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer reported in [1986] 61 STC 381 and Mansa Ram v. J. S. Rajyana, Excise and Taxation Officer [1966] 18 STC 57 (P&H) ?" Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. Unitech Limited, Gurgaon, was assessed to tax for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 as an unregistered dealer by the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad)-cum-Assessing Authority on February 22, 1994, as the company was found to have purchased and supplied cement, iron and steel in large quantities to different contractors against payment during the aforementioned assessment years. The orders of assessment passed by Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) were challenged in appeals before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak, who vide order dated August 24, 1995 partly dismissed the appeals and remanded the case to the Assessing Authority for deciding the case regarding empty cement bags and steel scraps. The orders of assessment passed by Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) were challenged in appeals before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak, who vide order dated August 24, 1995 partly dismissed the appeals and remanded the case to the Assessing Authority for deciding the case regarding empty cement bags and steel scraps. The respondent being aggrieved by the aforementioned order challenged the same before the Tribunal. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) does not have the concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, was not competent to assess the dealer being "not an appropriate Assessing Authority" under rule 2(c) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975. The Tribunal vide its order dated April 17, 2002, quashed the orders passed by the Assessing Authority as well as the order of the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Assessing Authority was not the appropriate authority to assess the assessee. Thereafter, an application for referring the matter to the High Court was filed by the Revenue which has been allowed and the matter has been referred to the High Court. Counsel for the Revenue has submitted that a perusal of notification dated May 19, 1989, would make it absolutely clear that the Excise and Taxation Officers (Anti-Evasion Squad) have been authorized to perform the duties of the Assessing Authority within the meaning of clause (a) of section 2 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act read with rule 2(c) of the Rules. The notification dated May 19, 1989, is reproduced as under : "No. S.O.76/H.A.20/73.S.3/89. The notification dated May 19, 1989, is reproduced as under : "No. S.O.76/H.A.20/73.S.3/89. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 and clause (a) of section 2 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 the Governor of Haryana hereby appoints the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad), Excise and Taxation Department to assist the Commissioner, Haryana, and authorize him to perform the duties of an Assessing Authority within the meaning of the said clause (a) of section 2 of the said Act throughout the State of Haryana." Counsel for the Revenue has submitted that similar provision has been interpreted by the Division Bench in the judgment in Devi Dass Gopal Krishan v. State of Punjab reported as [1973] 31 STC 536 (P&H), wherein the notification dated June 11, 1963, which was in the same terms as notification dated May 19, 1989, was interpreted and it was held that "The reading of the notification along with the definition of 'appropriate Assessing Authority' clearly shows that Shri K. K. Uppal had the jurisdiction to make the assessment. We are, therefore, of the opinion that he was the appropriate Assessing Authority as defined in clause (b) of rule 2 of the Rules". The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the orders passed by the Assessing Authority as well as the appellate authority were in consonance with the notification dated May 19, 1989. On the other hand, the arguments raised by the counsel for the Revenue have been controverted by Mr. Krishan Mehta, counsel for the assessee, who submits that the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) was not the officer who had the necessary jurisdiction of the circle in question and hence he did not have the jurisdiction. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length and find that the language of the notification dated May 19, 1989, is itself absolutely clear, whereby the Government of Haryana has appointed the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) to assist the Commissioner, Haryana and has further authorised him to perform the duties of the Assessing Authority within the meaning of clause (a) of section 2 of the Act, in addition to his duties as the Assessing Authority in a particular circle. Apart from the above, the present case is squarely covered by the decision in Devi Dass's case [1973] 31 STC 536 (P&H), wherein the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) has been authorized to perform his duties of Assessing Authority within the meaning of clause (a) of section 2 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act. In view of the above question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As far as question No. 2 is concerned, the facts of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sarjoo Prasad Ram Kumar [1976] 37 STC 533 were entirely different, as in that case an officer of one circle had made an assessment with regard to another circle without proper authorization. Moreover, the notification dated May 19, 1989, issued by the Haryana Government was not the subject-matter of decision in the judgment reported as Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sarjoo Prasad Ram Kumar [1976] 37 STC 533 (SC). Thus, question No. 2 does not survive in the facts and circumstances of the present case as its facts are not applicable to this case. For the reasons recorded above, this reference is decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As the Tribunal has not decided the case on the merits, therefore, the case is sent back to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh on merits after giving opportunity to both the sides.