JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 19.9.2013 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati, whereby it has dismissed petitioner’s appeal (Case No.47 STA/12). 2. Sadly, this is a second round of litigation and yet, with deep regret, we are constrained to remand the matter for its fresh decision on appeal in compliance of earlier order dated 21.11.2012 of this High Court passed in WP(C) No.5470/2012. 3. The petitioner is a registered dealer as Transporter under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. According to the petitioner, it had transported the goods by road to the State of Arunachal Pradesh through the State of Assam under a valid Transit Pass issued at the concerned Entry Check Post and since the goods were not sold within the State of Assam, it was not liable to pay any tax under the provisions of the Assam Value Added Tax Act. But the Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings to levy tax and penalty before whom, the petitioner submitted its reply to the show cause notice. The Assessing Officer was, however, not satisfied with the reply and vide order dated 9.9.2011 raised a demand of tax amounting to Rs.4,04,762/- with penal interest of Rs.8,250/-. The Assessing Officer, in addition, also imposed penalty equivalent to three times of tax to the extent of Rs.12,14,286/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner of Taxes, who dismissed the same, vide order dated 4.8.2012. The petitioner then filed appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue and it too was dismissed vide order dated 8.10.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP(C) 5470/2012 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21.11.2012, remanded the matter to the Assam Board of Revenue for fresh decision on the issue - whether there was any evasion of tax by the petitioner. And the Assam Board of Revenue, instead of deciding the issue, as directed by this Court, has only dealt with an issue that petitioner tried/attempted to evade the tax and dismissed the appeal by the impugned order. In all fairness, the Board of Revenue ought to have decided the issue as raised by the petitioner whether there was any evasion of tax and not whether any attempt to evade the tax was made by the petitioner. 4. In all fairness, the Board of Revenue ought to have decided the issue as raised by the petitioner whether there was any evasion of tax and not whether any attempt to evade the tax was made by the petitioner. 4. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 19.9.2013 and remand the matter again to the Assam Board of Revenue for a fresh decision on the issue - whether there was evasion of tax by the petitioner. 5. With the above direction, this revision petition stands finally disposed of.