JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. In this Commercial Tax Revision, preferred under Section 55 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “VAT Act”, for brevity), the assessee has assailed the judgment passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand in Second Appeal No. 83 of 2012 confirming the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal)-Second in Appeal No. 606 of 2012 dated 11.05.2012. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute at present. The revisionist-assessee, besides executing works contracts, is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of handmade wire mesh, and is registered with the department. The assessee was assessed to tax under Section 25(6) of the VAT Act by the Assessing Authority vide assessment order dated 25.01.2011, and the self-manufactured sales of handmade wire mesh for Rs. 40,95,167/- were taxed @ 4%. However, at a later stage, the assessee was served with a notice issued under Section 30 of the VAT Act for rectification of the rate of tax earlier assessed on ‘handmade wire mesh’ treating it as an unclassified item and, hence, to be taxed @ 12.5%. The assessee filed its explanation before the Assessing Authority, who, taking into note the language of notification number 560/XXVII(8) dated 05.06.2006, rectified the original assessment order vide order dated 30.04.2012 passed under Section 30 of the VAT Act, and assessed the turnover of handmade wire mesh @ 12.5%, and an additional demand for Rs.3,48,089/- was created against the assessee. 3. The assessee preferred a first appeal before the learned Joint Commissioner (Appeal), who vide judgment and order dated 11.05.2012, passed in Appeal No. 606 of 2012 for the assessment year 2007-08, allowed the appeal and held that the rectification order dated 30.04.2012 was beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 30 of the VAT Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved with such judgment and order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the learned Joint Commissioner (Appeal), the department preferred a Second Appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal decided that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority requires no interference. While deciding this issue, the learned Tribunal resorted to the following reasoning :- “We have heard both the sides and perused the records carefully. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal decided that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority requires no interference. While deciding this issue, the learned Tribunal resorted to the following reasoning :- “We have heard both the sides and perused the records carefully. Entry number 128 in schedule II B of the Act earlier relating to taxability of ‘hand made wire mesh’ was inserted vide notification number 04/XXVII(8)/2006 dated 21.01.2006, which was changed vide notification number 560/XXVII(8)/2006 dated 05.06.2006 and a new entry “wire mesh manufactured through warp and weft 'tana bana'” was substituted. From the perusal of the language of these two entries, it is not pretty clear that 'hand made wire mesh' and 'wire mesh manufactured through warp and weft on ‘tana bana' “ are different commodities with different process of manufacturing. The provisions of section 22 of the erstwhile UP Trade Tax Act, 1948 as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand through modification and adaptation order, 2002 and that of section 30 of the VAT Act, 2005 are more or less similarly worded. The respondent/assessee was assessed to tax on manufactured item treating it as 'hand made wire mesh' @ 4 percent. The process of manufacturing of wire mesh on tana bana system being different, cannot be rectified under section 30 of the Act treating this mistake as apparent on the face of the record. ‘Hand made wire mesh' and 'wire mesh manufactured on tana bana system' are the same or not, is definitely a debatable issue and as such mistakes relating to debatable issues cannot be rectified under section 22 of the Act. We are placing our reliance on the finding recorded by Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in the case of CST Vs. Bharat Bone Mill, Deoriya STR Number 150/1990 decided on 20.10.2003 (2004 NTN Vol. 24-300 All. HC). We find substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent. Consequently, we are of the view that while deciding the first appeal, learned J.C.(A) has not committed any error of law. Hence first appellate order dated 30.04.2012 is liable to be sustained and this State appeal is liable to be dismissed.” 5. When the matter stood thus, the Assessing Authority, by resorting to Section 29 of the VAT Act, reassessed the escaped turnover and again imposed the tax @ 12.5% on the assessee for the same product. Hence first appellate order dated 30.04.2012 is liable to be sustained and this State appeal is liable to be dismissed.” 5. When the matter stood thus, the Assessing Authority, by resorting to Section 29 of the VAT Act, reassessed the escaped turnover and again imposed the tax @ 12.5% on the assessee for the same product. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), which was allowed, but later the department preferred a second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Dehradun Bench, which was allowed, and the order of the Assessing Authority, passed under Section 29 of the VAT Act, was restored to file. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that once the matter was set at rest by the first round of litigation, and the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the assessee is taxable @ 4% and not @ 12.5%, then it was not proper on the part of the Assessing Authority to resort to Section 29 of the VAT Act for assessment of the escaped turnover. This is, in fact, stated to be not an escaped turnover, rather a decision consciously taken by the authorities, which was also confirmed by the learned Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the revisionist would further argue that if the department had any grievance against the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the first round of litigation i.e. in Second Appeal No. 83 of 2012, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by judgment dated 31.10.2012, then it was open for the department to either file a review application before the Tribunal, or to prefer a revision before this Court. That having been not done, the issue had attained its finality, and in the garb of assessment of the escaped turnover, the matter cannot be re-agitated. Hence, he prays that the present revision may be allowed, and the order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as by the Assessing Authority under Section 29 of the VAT Act be set-aside. 8. Hence, he prays that the present revision may be allowed, and the order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as by the Assessing Authority under Section 29 of the VAT Act be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned Brief Holder appearing for the department would argue that the powers conferred under Section 29 of the VAT Act are independent of other provisions and, therefore, whenever there is an escaped turnover then the Assessing Authority has jurisdiction inspite of earlier judgment passed by the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authority, or the learned Tribunal. 9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid argument, it is proper to take note of Section 29 of the VAT Act. It reads as follows :- “SECTION 29 : Assessment of Escaped Turnover- (1) Where after a dealer is assessed under Section 25 or Section 26 for any year or part thereof, the Assessing Authority has reason to believe that the whole or any part of turnover of the dealer in respect of any tax period has- (a) escaped assessment; or (b) been under assessed; or (c) been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable; or (d) been wrongly allowed any exemption or deduction therefrom; or (e) been wrongly allowed any tax credit therein, the Assessing Authority shall, after recording the reasons in writing, serve a notice on the dealer and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and making such enquiries as he considers necessary, he shall assess or reassess the turnover of the dealer and tax according to law and the provisions of this Act shall as far as may be, apply accordingly: Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been charged had the turnover not escaped assessment or full assessment as the case may be. Explanation (1): Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prevent the Assessing Authority from making an assessment to the best of its judgment. Explanation (2): For the purposes of this section and of section 30, "Assessing Authority" means the officer who passed the earlier assessment order, if any, and includes the officer having jurisdiction for the time being to assess the dealer. Explanation (2): For the purposes of this section and of section 30, "Assessing Authority" means the officer who passed the earlier assessment order, if any, and includes the officer having jurisdiction for the time being to assess the dealer. Explanation (3): Notwithstanding the issuance of notice under this sub-section, where an order of assessment or reassessment is in existence from before the issuance of such notice it shall continue to be effective as such, until varied by an order of assessment or reassessment made under this section in pursuance of such notice. (2) Except as otherwise provided in Section 28 or under this section, no order of assessment or reassessment shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of three years form the end of the year in respect of which or part of which the tax is assessable. (3) Assessment or reassessment in respect of turnover escaped from assessment may be passed at any time within three years and nine months ending on 31st December after the expiry of assessment year for which assessment is to be made, provided that notice under this section has been served within a period of three years and six months ending on 30th September after the expiry of the assessment year for which assessment is to be made. (4) If the commissioner on his own or on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Authority is satisfied that it is just and expedient so to do, he may authorise the Assessing Authority in that behalf, and then such assessment or reassessment may be made after the expiration of the period aforesaid but not after the expiration of six years from the end of such assessment year, notwithstanding that such assessment or reassessment may involve a change of opinion.” 10. Thus, it is clear that, where after a dealer is assessed under Section 25 or Section 26 of the VAT Act for any year or part thereof, the Assessing Authority has reasons to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of the dealer in respect of any tax period has- (i) escaped assessment; or (ii) been under assessed; or (iii) been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable; or (iv) been wrongly allowed any exemption or deduction therefrom; or (v) been wrongly allowed any tax credit therein, the Assessing Authority shall, after recording the reasons in writing, serve a notice on the dealer for further assessment. 11. Thus, it is clear that Section 29 of the VAT Act will come into play if and only if the Assessing Authority has reasons to believe that any turnover of the dealer has been under-assessed, or has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable, or has been allowed any exemption, which he is not entitled to. It does not empower the Assessing Authority to re-examine the judgment passed by the First Appellate Authority or the Commercial Tax Tribunal in guise of assessment of escaped turnover. Only when it comes to the conclusion that certain turnovers are not taxed properly, only then he can invoke this provision. Secondly, it is apparent from the records that in the first round of litigation, the question that was raised before the learned Tribunal was whether the ‘handmade wire mesh' was manufactured on ‘tana bana’ system, and whether it is taxable @ 4%. Thus, it is not open for the Assessing Authority to reopen the assessment for the purpose of taxing the escaped turnover. 12. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Tribunal, confirming the order passed by the Assessing Authority, is not sustainable and has to be set-aside. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed. The order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 31.10.2012 and the order passed by the First Appellate Authority dated 11.05.2012 is, hereby, set-aside. There shall be no orders as to cost. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.