JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar - This is a revision against the order dated August 9, 2010 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Varanasi, for the assessment year 2000-01. The applicant was running a brick kiln and was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of bricks. The applicant has opted compounding scheme for the period October, 1999 to September, 2000 under section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). For the period October, 2000 up to March 31, 2001, the applicant has not opted the compounding scheme and, therefore, a regular assessment was to be made. Before the assessing authority, the applicant has disclosed the total turnover of Rs. 49,100 and claimed exemption on such turnover being below taxable limit. The assessing authority has not accepted the claim of the applicant and has estimated the taxable turnover at Rs. 16,69,800 and levied the tax at Rs. 1,34,310. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Jaunpur. The first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the applicant has not deposited the admitted tax. According to the appellate authority, the exemption limit will not apply and the applicant should have deposited the tax on the turnover of Rs. 49,100 and since the tax on the aforesaid turnover was not paid, the appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order has upheld the view taken by the first appellate authority. However, he further proceeded to adjudicate the issue on the merits and dismissed the appeal. Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, counsel for the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has illegally proceeded to decide the appeal on the merits, which was not the subject-matter of appeal. He submitted that the Tribunal has illegally upheld the view of the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority has illegally held that the tax on Rs. 49,100 was the admitted tax, which has not been deposited and, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. He submitted that the exemption limit was up to Rs. 1,00,000 in the case of manufacture for the entire year. For six months, the limit comes to Rs. The first appellate authority has illegally held that the tax on Rs. 49,100 was the admitted tax, which has not been deposited and, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. He submitted that the exemption limit was up to Rs. 1,00,000 in the case of manufacture for the entire year. For six months, the limit comes to Rs. 50,000 and since the total turnover for six months was below Rs. 50,000 there was no liability to tax. He further submitted that it is a highly disputed and a debatable question that whether the turnover disclosed by the applicant was liable to tax or not and, therefore, the view of the first appellate authority that the tax on the disclosed turnover at Rs. 49,100 should have been deposited and the same is admitted tax is not justified. The learned standing counsel supported the order. I have perused the impugned orders and considered the rival submissions. In my view, the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the first appellate authority are not sustainable. Before the Tribunal, the issue involved was whether the first appellate authority was correct in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable for non-deposit of admitted tax. Once the Tribunal upheld the view of the first appellate authority, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the merits of the case. The Tribunal has exceeded to its jurisdiction in considering the merits of the case while upholding the order of the first appellate authority dismissing the appeal as not maintainable for non-deposit of admitted tax. The Tribunal is directed to be little careful in this regard. So far as dismissal of appeal, as not maintainable, on account of non-deposit of tax on Rs. 49,100 is concerned, I am of the view that whether any tax is payable on the disclosed turnover of Rs. 49,100 was a disputed issue. At no stage the applicant has admitted the liability of tax on such turnover. The claim of the applicant was that since the total turnover was below the taxable limit, therefore, it was not liable to tax, which was to be adjudicated and cannot be said to be admitted tax. In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated August 9, 2010 and the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Jaunpur, dated August 3, 2004 are set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated August 9, 2010 and the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Jaunpur, dated August 3, 2004 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Jaunpur, to decide the appeal afresh on the merits in accordance with law.