JUDGMENT
Anshuman Singh, J.
1. The assessee feeling aggrieved against the order dated April 30, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Meerut, relating to assessment year 1981-82, has come to this Court in the instant revision.
2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of purchase and sale of foodgrains, gur, khandsari, etc., both on its own behalf as well as on behalf of commission agency. The disclosed turnover of the assessee, under the U. P. and the Central Sales Tax Acts, was rejected by the assessing authority and best judgment assessment was passed. The assessee preferred first appeals under Section 9 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, who allowed the appeal relating to the Central Sales Tax Act in toto, but the appeal relating to the U. P. head was allowed in part and the taxable turnover was reduced maintaining the rejection of books of account. The Revenue as well as the assessee feeling aggrieved preferred second appeals before the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act, which dismissed the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue under the U. P. head and the Central head respectively but allowed that of the Revenue under the U. P. head. The assessee has come to this Court against the order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal of the Revenue under the U. P. head.
3. Mr. Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, has urged that the Tribunal committed an error in not permitting the assessee to claim exemption for the purchases made in the course of inter-State trade on behalf of the ex-U. P. principals which it was entitled in view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Hanuman Trading Company 1979 UPTC 809. He further contended that though the Tribunal in its order dated February 27, 1986, has held that the question sought to be raised is a mixed question of fact and law, yet it declined to permit the assessee to raise the same. Mr. P. K. Jain, learned counsel for the Revenue, has contended that since the assessee did not challenge the aforesaid order dated February 27, 1986, rejecting the application of the assessee for raising the said question, it is not open to the assessee now to agitate the said point in the present revision. I cannot subscribe to the view advanced by Mr. P. K. Jain, because it is always open to an assessee to challenge an interlocutory order passed by the appellate authority during the pendency of an appeal in a revision filed against the final order of the appellate authority. In my opinion, since the Tribunal did not permit the applicant-assessee to raise the said point, much prejudice has been caused to it. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal should be directed to decide the appeal afresh after permitting the assessee to raise the question of exemption for the purchases made in the course of inter-State trade on behalf of the ex-U. P. principals.
4. No other point has been pressed for consideration.
5. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal to the extent indicated above is set aside and it is directed to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above. However, there will be no order as to costs.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under Section 11(8) of the Act.