JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar - These are two revisions against the order of the Tribunal dated September 16, 2010 by which the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the first appellate authority remanding back the matter to the assessing officer. For the month of September, 2008, the applicant had filed return claiming set-off of the tax paid by the seller on the basis of the invoices issued by the selling dealer with the amount of tax payable by the applicant. On inquiry, the assessing officer found that the invoices issued by M/s. Jai Kaila Mai Bartan Bhandar, Gola Kaun, Postikhana, Jalesar, Etah, namely, invoice No. 155 dated September 25, 2008 for Rs. 12,00,282 and invoice No. 160 dated August 27, 2008 for Rs. 12,31,150 were not genuine invoices and accordingly the notice was issued to the applicant under section 8 as well as under section 54 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as, "the VAT Act"). After giving opportunity to the applicant, the assessing authority has passed the order under section 8 of the VAT Act for the month of September, 2008 and has held that on inquiry it was found that M/s. Jai Kaila Mai Bartan Bhandar, Gola Kaun, Postikhana, Jalesar, Etah, has not filed the return from June, 2008 and their registration certificate has been suspended from the month of September, 2008. The assessing authority has raised the demand of Rs. 97,257 and also levied the penalty under section 54 of the VAT Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders passed by the assessing authority, the applicant filed two appeals before the Joint Commissioner (Appeal). The Joint Commissioner (Appeal) allowed both the appeals and remanded back the matter to the assessing authority. The appellate authority has remanded back the matter with a direction to the assessing authority that before arriving at any adverse conclusion against the assessee, the assessing officer had to investigate up to date position of the selling dealer and also to verify the fact that the cheques issued by the assessee were actually issued against the tax invoices given to the assessee or not. He has also observed that the assessee should have been given opportunity to cross-examine the selling dealer, as requested by him. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), the applicant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. He has also observed that the assessee should have been given opportunity to cross-examine the selling dealer, as requested by him. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), the applicant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated September 16, 2010 dismissed both the appeals. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, counsel for the applicant and learned standing counsel. I have perused the impugned order. The counsel for the applicant submitted that to provide a fresh inning the matter should not be remanded back. In support of the contention he relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Abid Hasan Watch Company, Varanasi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1995] UPTC 1035. The learned standing counsel submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant by remanding back the matter to the assessing officer for fresh inquiry. He submitted that since the assessee claimed the benefit of set-off of the tax, the burden lies upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the invoices. On inquiry, the assessing authority found that M/s. Jai Kali Mai Bartan Bhandar, Mathura, has not filed return from the month of June, 2008 and its registration has been suspended from September, 2008. There was sufficient material to initiate the proceeding under section 8 and under section 54 of the VAT Act. However, the appellate authority has remanded back the matter to the assessing officer to make a fresh inquiry from the selling dealer about such invoices and also directed to provide opportunity to cross-examine the applicant. In the circumstances, no prejudice is caused to the applicant. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the impugned order. I do not find any error in the order. No prejudice is caused by remanding back the matter to the assessing officer to make fresh inquiry, which appears to be in the interest of the assessee itself. In order to arrive at a conclusion whether the invoices were genuine or not if a direction is issued to make the inquiry from the selling dealer, who has issued the invoices, I do not find any illegality in the said direction. In the result, both the revisions fail and are dismissed.