JUDGMENT Ms. Bharati Sapru - This revision has been filed by the assessee aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal dated September 28, 2002. The questions of law referred to are as under : "(i) Whether the tax amount charged by and paid to the applicant could be included in the taxable turnover and have subjected to tax ? (ii) Whether the agreement dated April 6, 1996, is contrary to the Act ? (iii) Whether the orders of the authorities below are contrary to the judgment of this honourable court in the cases of Auto Sales, Allahabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1983] UPTC 1298, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Girdhar Das [1981] UPTC 915, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Alodeal Chemicals Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1998] UPTC 840 and Tata Timkin Limited v. CTT [1999] NTN 523 and also the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 46 STC 477 (SC); [1980] UPTC 1308 ? (iv) Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the jurisdiction or authority to remand the matter to the assessing authority for re-verification of the applicant's entitlement to exemption under section 4AA of the Act when this question was not involved in the appeal and had not been raised therein, such an action being contrary to the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Anand General Store v. CST [1987] 66 STC 349 (All); [1987] ATJ 432 ?" In respect of questions of law referred to being question Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) are concerned, learned counsel for the assessee has argued that the books of accounts of the assessee were accepted, despite that the first appellate authority has taken a view that because the assessee segregated tax collected from its purchaser in its books of account, it meant that an extra 7.5 per cent tax had been collected and the same was subject to be taxed and was to be included in his taxable turnover, thereby making a false addition. The learned counsel for the assessee has argued that the assessee had made a sale in pursuance of the execution of a prior contract dated April 26, 1996 and under that agreement, the applicant had sold its entire production of manufactured goods to only one purchaser of the name of Corona Plus Industries Ltd., against a predetermined price, which was inclusive of taxes. It is the contention of the assessee that it had not charged tax separately. The bifurcation made in its books of accounts were only to show that 7.5 per cent of it, constituted the tax collected and it deposited the tax on that amount. He has argued vehemently that since the books were accepted by the authority, it was not open to the authority to charge tax on 7.5 per cent which had been segregated in the books of accounts. I have also heard learned standing counsel for the Department, who does not deny that the books of accounts of the assessee were accepted. The order of the Tribunal records that the agreement dated April 26, 1996 was not binding on the Department. The purpose of examining the agreement was to see whether the agreement was a genuine one and whether the contentions of the assessee that the tax had been collected by the assessee from his purchaser as a composite price in order to determine whether the tax was included in his turnover as composite price or whether it was liable to be taxed separately as having been charged separately. The authorities below have failed to do so. Thus the matter requires reconsideration after examining and investigating all the issues relating to the agreement dated April 26, 1996. In so far as the question No. (iv) is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee has argued that the matter relating to the exemption which had been granted to the assessee under section 4AA of the Act is concerned, the same had been granted and accepted by the assessing authority. He has also argued that it was not open to the first appellate authority to raise issues with regard to the exemption granted to the assessee under section 4AA of the Act and remand the matter to the assessing authority on that. The assessee filed an appeal against that part of the order of the first appellate authority, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The assessee filed an appeal against that part of the order of the first appellate authority, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee has argued that in so far as the question of ground of exemption under section 4AA is concerned, it was not open to the authority to travel beyond the grounds in the appeal or to interfere with that part of the order of assessment, against which no appeal had been preferred. He has therefore argued that the remand made by the first appellate authority with regard to this aspect, is wholly without jurisdiction and authority. I am consequently of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal for examination of this issue is also without any authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration on both the aspects by the Tribunal - firstly on the point with regard to the agreement dated April 26, 1996 and the issue with regard to the grounds of exemption under section 4AA of the Act on the basis of material on record after giving to the assessee an opportunity of hearing. In view of the above, the entire matter is remanded to the Tribunal to reconsider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order being placed by the assessee before the Tribunal within the next three weeks from today. Until fresh orders is made by the Tribunal, no recovery shall be made against the assessee. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated September 28, 2002 is set aside. The revision is allowed as above. No costs.