JUDGMENT K. L. Manjunath - Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of the parties, the appeal is heard on merits. The assessee has come up in this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I, Bangalore, dated January 13, 2009 passed under section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). The assessee - appellant is a dealer in medical and pharmaceutical goods governed under section 4(4) of the Act and elected to pay tax on the pharmaceutical preparations on the maximum retail price indicated on the goods. For the period from April 2006 to March 2007, an order was passed under section 39(1) of the Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Davanagere. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Davanagere. The Joint Commissioner by annulling the order of assessment passed by the assessing officer remanded the matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration of the same. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, having noticed that the order of the Joint Commissioner is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, initiated suo motu proceedings invoking the powers of the Act and by its order dated January 13, 2009, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was set aside by restoring the order passed by the assessing officer. This order is called in question in this appeal. Though several grounds are urged in the appeal memorandum during the course of arguments, the main contention of the appellant before us is that, whether the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has committed serious error in allowing the revision by setting aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes when the Joint Commissioner had not considered the appeal of the appellant on merits ? According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes having found that the order of the assessing officer was not proper by annulling the order, remanded the matter to the assessing officer. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the case of the assessee was not considered by the appellate authority on merits. Therefore, he requests this court to set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and remand the matter to the appellate court. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the case of the assessee was not considered by the appellate authority on merits. Therefore, he requests this court to set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and remand the matter to the appellate court. According to him, even if the Additional Commissioner was of the opinion that the order of the assessing officer was bad in law, he should have remanded the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration in accordance with law and not to the assessing officer. The learned Government Advocate submits that as per the provisions of the Act, there is no provision for the appellate court to annul the order of assessment. According to her, the appellate court either has to set aside the order by allowing the appeal or dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that if the Joint Commissioner had no power to annul the order passed by the assessing officer and if the appeal of the appellant has not been considered by him on merits and if the Additional Commissioner was of the opinion that the order of annulment of the assessment was bad in law, he should have remanded the same to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for fresh consideration as the appeal of the appellant has not been disposed of by the Joint Commissioner, on merits and in accordance with law. Since such procedure is not followed, without answering the substantial question of law, we remit the matter to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Davanagere, to dispose of the appeal of the appellant on merits and in accordance with law. With the abovesaid observations, the appeal is disposed of.