JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma, J. -- This revision is directed against an order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated 6 May 2003 passed in Second appeal No. 457 of 1993 for assessment year 1975-76. In an earlier round of litigation which reached upto this Court, the revision of the revisionist was partly allowed to the extent that the forfeiture amount as directed by the Tribunal was affirmed. Insofar as the inclusion of freight charges in the taxable turnover of the revisionist is concerned, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal in the following terms: "The Tribunal could have summoned the record of the first appellate authority and in case it was not inclined to ascertain this by itself the Tribunal could have remanded the matter to the first appellate authority with a direction to give a categorical finding after examining all the bills/invoices as to how much of the total amount of Rs. 8,81,816/- was realised separately as freight charges and how much of it was to be included in turnover so as to fix tax liability. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x The revision is partly allowed. The order of the appellate Tribunal so far as it relates to the forfeiture of amount of Rs. 57,938/U/ s 28A of the Act is concerned, is affirmed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal so far as it relates to taxing the amount of freight charges worth Rs. 8,81,816/is set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh after examining the documents filed by the revisionist before the first appellate authority in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment." 2. Upon remand, the Tribunal has recorded that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the records before the first appellate authority was summoned and that some bills of freight charges were found. The Tribunal however, recorded that the original bills were not produced before it nor did they form part of the record of the assessing authority. It accordingly refused to grant any relief to the revisionist. 3. Sri Agrawal has submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred and has failed to proceed in the matter in accordance with the directions issued by this Court on remand. It accordingly refused to grant any relief to the revisionist. 3. Sri Agrawal has submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred and has failed to proceed in the matter in accordance with the directions issued by this Court on remand. He submits, referring to the bills appended as Annexure-6, to contend that this would clearly indicate that the freight were separately charged and could not therefore, be included in the taxable turnover of the revisionist. 4. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunal has categorically recorded that only some bills were found on the record of the first appellate authority. He further submits that in any view of the matter, there is no evidence on record which would indicate that the bills appended as Annexure-6 were produced either in original or in photocopy form before the Tribunal. It is his submission that the revisionist has clearly failed to discharge the obligation placed before the Tribunal to bring on record the entire material on the basis of which it was claiming reduction in its taxable turnover. 5. In response thereto Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that without prejudice to the submissions noted herein above, the revisionist, would in case such liberty is granted by the Court, produce before the Tribunal all the freight bills in original so as to substantiate its claim of reduction of taxable turnover. To this Sri Pandey has submitted that the State has no objection in case the original bills are produced before the Tribunal which may be examined by it afresh in light of the directions issued hereinafter as also those carried in the earlier judgement of this Court dated 24 February 1999. 6. The sole issue of dispute inter partes appears to be in respect of inclusion of freight charges of Rs. 8,81,816/- in the taxable turnover of the revisionist. Obviously, this cost of freight is liable to be reduced from the taxable turnover of the revisionist only when it is able to establish that such freight was separately charged. For this purpose, it was obligatory upon the revisionist to produce all the bills in original before the assessing authority or at least when the Tribunal took up proceedings pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. 7. For this purpose, it was obligatory upon the revisionist to produce all the bills in original before the assessing authority or at least when the Tribunal took up proceedings pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. 7. Be that as it may and in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court finds that the revisionist may be afforded one more opportunity to produce all documents for consideration of the Tribunal so that the controversy itself is laid to rest. Additionally, this Court notes the specific observations as carried in the earlier judgment rendered by the Court which required the Tribunal to examine all bills and invoices and to further return a finding as to whether the amount of freight had been separately charged or not. The Court find that no such finding has been returned by the Tribunal even in respect of some of the bills which were produced before it. 8. Accordingly, the revision shall stand allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 6 May 2003 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal before whom the revisionist shall produce all bills pertaining to freight charges in original within a period of one month from today. Upon such bills being filed in original, the Tribunal shall be free to proceed in the matter afresh and in light of the judgment rendered on 24 February 1999.