Remand in reassessment preserves assessing authority's original powers, including rejection of account books when books are not produced.

On remand for fresh assessment, the assessing authority retains its original power to examine the material, reject account books and complete the reassessment, subject to the remand directions. The document treats the earlier Full Bench view on the scope of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as controlling and distinguishes a relied-on Division Bench ruling as factually different. It also notes that repeated opportunities were given to produce the account books, but they were not produced, making the remand and the fresh assessment legally sustainable. The first appellate authority and the Tribunal were not required to examine the account books themselves.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after remand by the first appellate authority, the assessing authority retained power to re-examine and reject the account books and frame a fresh assessment, and whether the Tribunal or the first appellate authority was bound to examine the account books instead of remanding the matter.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that where an assessment is set aside by the appellate authority and the matter is remanded with directions for fresh assessment, the assessing authority retains the same power as it originally had, subject only to compliance with the remand directions. The earlier Full Bench ruling on the scope of sections 9 and 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was treated as controlling. The Division Bench decision relied on by the applicant was distinguished because it arose from a different factual setting and did not involve the same remand jurisdiction question. The record also showed that repeated opportunities were granted to produce the account books, but they were not produced, and the first appellate authority's remand was found to be a proper exercise of discretion in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The assessing authority was competent to reject the account books after remand and make the fresh assessment, and there was no obligation on the first appellate authority or the Tribunal to themselves examine the account books.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the remand order and the consequent assessment proceedings were upheld as legally valid, and no jurisdictional error was found in the rejection of the account books after the assessee failed to produce them.

Ratio Decidendi: On remand from an appellate authority, the assessing authority retains its original assessment powers, subject to the remand directions, and may complete the assessment on the material available when the assessee fails to produce account books despite opportunity.

---