JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, J. : The petitioner, M/s. National Aluminium Company Ltd. (in short ‘NALCO’), which is Public Sector Undertak¬ing, has challenged in this writ application the order dated 11.6.2007 passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Case No. SU-01/07-08 under Annexure-1, pursuant to the notice issued under Rule-80 of the O.S.T. Rules, wherein the Revisional Author¬ity has treated the sale of DEPBs made by the petitioner to be intra-state sales. 2. A little background of the case is necessary before dealing with the question raised before us. The petitioner, admittedly by way of public auction sold some of the DEPBs to some registered and unregistered dealers and the auction purchasers were claimed to have come from outside the State of Orissa. As the petitioner had been exporting aluminum through Visakhapatnam Port in Andhra Pradesh, against those exports the petitioner got some import duty entitlement under the DEPB Scheme, the Assessing Authorities in Andhra Pradesh issued show cause notice proposing to levy tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 on the transactions relating to transfer of the DEPB licences on the ground that such licences were registered with Visakhapatnam Port through which the export took place. Accordingly, the tax was levied under the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act. NALCO challenged such imposition of tax before the apex Court and the apex Court directed the matter to be considered by the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Tribunal for deter¬mining the issues involved. Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Tribunal held that the sale took place within the State of Orissa and not within the State of Andhra Pradesh and as such it should be treated as intra-State sale within the State of Orissa. The aforesaid observation, of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Tribunal was challenged by NALCO before the apex Court and the apex Court while disposing of the matter in the case of National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. State of A.P. and others, [2008] 14 VST 351 (SC) held that the scope of consideration before the Tribunal was very limited as to whether any sale took place within the State of Andhra Pradesh and having decided that issue the Tribunal was not required to go into any other questions particularly when the relevant factors were not before it. The apex Court has further held that to come to a conclusion that there was an intra-State sale within the State of Orissa, materials were required to be examined. That has not been done. There was no material before the Tribunal to come to a definite finding, as done, that the transaction should be treated as intra-State sale within the State of Orissa and concluded that the observations of the Tribu¬nal have no relevance and need to be set aside and accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basing upon the order of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Tribunal, the notice under Rule-8 of the O.S.T. Rules vide Annexure-6 was is¬sued. There is no recording as required under Rule-80 that the order passed by the Sales Tax officer is in any manner prejudi¬cial to the interest of the Revenue and as such the notice is liable to be quashed. 4. Fact remains that the petitioner has given show cause reply to the aforesaid notice and ultimately the assessment order under Annexure-9 was passed, which was also confirmed by the Revisional Authority under Annexure-1. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the notice issued under Annexure-6, the assessment order under Annexure-9 and the order of confirmation made by the Revisional Authority under Annexure-1 on the ground as stated herein before. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Authority, only relying upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Tribunal, which was later on set aside by the apex Court held that the sale of the goods taken place in the State of Orissa, for which the transactions are to be treated as intra-State sales. According to Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner,there is no other material before the authori¬ty to come to such a conclusion. According to him, the finding of the Revisional Authority that the sale of DEPB amounting to Rs.67,34,58,145/- effected by NALCO during the year 2000-01 is subject to levy of tax under OST Act which has escaped assessment made under Section 12(4) of the OST Act for the said year, is contrary to the record maintained by the petitioner in course of his business transaction. 6. A bare perusal of the order of the Asst. 6. A bare perusal of the order of the Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri Range, Bhubaneswar as well as order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax Orissa under Annexure-1 would show that save and except quoting the observations made by the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Tribunal, no independent effort has been made for coming to the conclusion that actually the sale is intra-state and not inter-State as held by them. Adding to this, a different scenario now emerges after the apex Court set aside the observation of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Tribunal, in the case of National Aluminium (supra). 7. The order of Assessing Authority as well as Revisional Authority which were totally based upon the observation of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Tribunal, cannot be allowed to sustain. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 20.3.2007 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Puri Range, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-9 and the order dated 11.6.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa in Suo motu Revision Case No. SU-01/07-08 for the assessment year 2000-01 under Annexure-1 and direct the Revisional Authority, i.e. Joint Commissioner of Com¬mercial Taxes, Puri Range, Bhubaneswar to go for fresh assess¬ment. The petitioner is at liberty to produce all those documents before the Assessing Authority. It is also open to the Assessing Authority to call for any documents/materials that is required for deciding the issue. 8. Let the petitioner appear before the Revisional Author¬ity,i.e. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Puri Range, Bhubaneswar on 5.4.2010 and on his appearance the Revisional Authority shall fix a date of hearing and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. A free copy of the order be handed over to Mr.R.P. Kar, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. B.K. NAYAK, J. : I agree. Petition disposed of.