JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J.—This appeal is filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, in No. ZAC-1/BCD-1 & 3/SMR-68/09-10 dated September 28, 2010, wherein the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has set aside the order passed by the first appellate authority and remitted the matter to the first appellate authority to examine all the issues discussed in the SMR order and pass fresh appeal order by recording the finding on all matters involved in the cases under SMR. The material facts leading up to this appeal are as follows : The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by order dated August 7, 2004, passed the order of assessment under section 12(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") holding that the assessee has given statutory deduction and disallowing the other deductions claimed. Being aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed before the appellate authority by the assessee and the matter was remitted to the assessing officer and fresh order was passed on May 17, 2000. Being aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed before the appellate authority, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by setting aside the order of assessment. The revisional authority having found that the order passed by the appellate authority would cause loss of Revenue to the State and accordingly passed the order in accordance with law, which was challenged in the writ petition and the matter was remitted to the revisional authority and thereafter by order dated September 28, 2010 after detailed consideration of the material on record and having found that the first appellate authority has not call for the records and has not considered the material on record, remitted the matter to the first appellate authority by setting aside the order in exercise of the revisional power and directed the first appellate authority to pass fresh orders on all the issues involved in the cases under SMR. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the revisional authority dated September 28, 2010, this appeal is filed by the assessee. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the revisional authority dated September 28, 2010, this appeal is filed by the assessee. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority had been passed in accordance with law after considering the entire material on record and there was no error in the order passed by the appellate authority and no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue and wherefore the revisional authority was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority and remitted the matter to the appellate authority. He further submitted that since certain observations was made on the merits while setting aside the order, the same may influence the appellate authority in passing the fresh order as per the direction. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent argued in support of the order passed by the revisional authority, which is impugned in this appeal. 5. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record. The material on record would clearly show that the revisional authority having found on scrutiny of the material on record and the order passed by the appellate authority holding that the appellate authority had not looked into the records of the assessing officer and he had also not considered the material and the contentions of the parties were also not considered in accordance with law and therefore the order passed by the appellate authority could not be sustained and further held that having regard to the reasons for which the order passed by the appellate authority setting aside the matter, is required to be remitted to the first appellate authority to examine all the issues and pass fresh orders by recording the finding on all issues involved in the cases. Since the matter has been remitted to the first appellate authority to pass fresh orders by recording the findings on all matters involved in the cases under SMR, it is clear that any observation made by the revisional authority while passing the order should not influence the first appellate authority in deciding all the issues involved in the case and apart from making the said observations, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, in passing the impugned order. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of with the abovesaid observations.