Post-remand assessments remain revisable, and second-sale exemption fails without clear proof of prior tax incidence.

Assessments made after remand remained open to revision because the remand did not finally decide the matter on merits; it merely directed fresh consideration on evidence, so the subsequent assessment orders were independent and could be revised if prejudicial to revenue. The exemption claim on alleged second sales of used engine oil also failed because the assessee did not produce satisfactory evidence that the goods had already suffered tax at the earlier stage. The discussion treats this as a factual appreciation issue and notes that the finding was not shown to be perverse. The operative point is that fresh post-remand assessments can be revisable, while second-sale exemption must be strictly proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Deputy Commissioner could exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) over assessments made by the assessing authority after remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner; and (ii) whether the assessee established entitlement to exemption on the footing that the disputed turnover represented second sales of used engine oil.

Issue (i): whether the Deputy Commissioner could exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) over assessments made by the assessing authority after remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.

Analysis: The remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner did not finally decide the matter on merits. It only directed the assessing authority to give the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence and then pass fresh orders. The assessments made thereafter were independent orders based on the evidence produced before the assessing authority. A superior authority was therefore competent to revise those assessments if they were prejudicial to the revenue. The cited distinction with the earlier case relied on by the assessee was that, there, revision was sought against an assessment already supplanted by a reassessment and an appellate order that stood in the way, whereas here the revisional authority acted only on the fresh assessments made after remand.

Conclusion: The revisional action under section 20(2) was within jurisdiction and valid.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee established entitlement to exemption on the footing that the disputed turnover represented second sales of used engine oil.

Analysis: The assessee was required to show, by acceptable material, that the goods had already suffered tax at the earlier stage and that the disputed sales were not first sales. On the evidence produced, the authorities found that the supporting bills did not establish the assessee's claim with the required certainty and did not satisfactorily show that the purchases had already suffered tax. The finding was one of appreciation of evidence and was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to prove entitlement to exemption on the basis of second sale.

Final Conclusion: The assessments were lawfully revisable and the exemption claim on the disputed turnover was not established, leaving no basis to interfere with the orders under challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment made by the assessing authority after remand, based on fresh appraisal of evidence and not on a conclusive earlier adjudication, remains amenable to revision under the revisional power conferred by the statute, and an exemption claimed as a second sale must be proved by satisfactory evidence that the goods had already suffered tax at the earlier stage.

---