JUDGMENT
Somasundaram, J.
1. This tax case revision is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated July 13, 1992, in T.A. No. 857 of 1991 in respect of the disputed turnover of Rs. 20,43,522.90, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the year 1986-87. Admittedly the petitioners were originally assessed on a turnover of Rs. 1,24,51,555 at 10 per cent, as the turnover was covered by defective “C” forms. The petitioners disputed Rs. 1,24,51,555 representing the turnover covered by defective “C” forms before the first appellate authority, in Appeal No. 57 of 1988. The first appellate authority, by the order dated March 27, 1989, remanded the matter to the assessing authority to consider the “C” forms to be filed by the petitioners, after rectification, for the above turnover. The assessing officer, after remand, by the order dated August 18, 1989, has redone the assessment by levying concessional rate of tax at 1 per cent on a turnover of Rs. 1,00,82,805, out of the turnover of Rs. 1,21,05,095 covered by “C” forms. The remaining amount of Rs. 20,23,290 was subjected to tax at 10 per cent as the “C” forms filed against the said turnover, were found to be not acceptable, on the ground that the originals were not filed. The petitioners have allowed the said order of the assessing officer dated August 18, 1989, with regard to the sum of Rs. 20,23,290 to become final, as they did not file any appeal against the said order of the assessing officer dated August 18, 1989. However, they filed a second appeal in T.A. No. 454 of 1989 before the Tribunal only against that portion of the order of the first appellate authority dated March 27, 1989 in Appeal No. 57 of 1988 relating to (a) assessment made on the sale of edible oil sold, amounting to Rs. 4,90,485 at 4 per cent; (b) assessment of Rs. 3,45,460 at 10 per cent instead of 1 per cent; and (c) assessment of Rs. 85,12,994 taxed at 10 per cent, instead of 4 per cent. The order of remand with regard to turnover of Rs. 1,21,05,095 was not at all the subject-matter of T.A. No. 454 of 1989. The Tribunal in Tax Appeal No. 454 of 1989, has ordered the levy of tax at 1 per cent on a turnover of Rs. 4,90,485 and in respect of the other items, viz., (b) and (c), referred to above, the order of the appellate authority was set aside and the matter was remitted to the assessing officer to receive the rectified “C” forms and to levy concessional rate of tax, if they are in order. Pursuant to the order of remand in T.A. No. 454 of 1989, the assessing officer passed a fresh order of assessment on November 30, 1990 carrying out the directions of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 454 of 1989. As against the order dated November 30, 1990, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 10 of 1991, before the appellate authority. In the said Appeal No. 10 of 1991, the petitioner, inter alia, challenged the disallowance of the concessional rate of tax on the turnover of Rs. 20,23,290. The appellate authority, by its order dated July 19, 1991, did not countenance the plea of the petitioners in the following terms :
“In view of the above discussions, it is seen that the assessing officer is correct in observing that the “C” form in question was not considered for the purpose of assessment, since it was not a matter before the Tribunal. The contention of the appellant that this order dated November 30, 1990, of the assessing officer is to implement both the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal is incorrect. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was already implemented on August 18, 1989 and this was not agitated, within the time prescribed for appeal and was allowed to become final. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the assessing officer now appealed against on this point.”
Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal in T.A. No. 857 of 1991 before the Tribunal. By the order dated July 13, 1992, the Tribunal dismissed the said appeal.
2. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed any appeal against the order of the assessing officer dated August 18, 1989, levying tax at 10 per cent on the turnover of Rs. 20,23,290 and the order dated August 18, 1989, has become final. Further, the order of remand dated March 27, 1989, by the appellate authority in Appeal No. 57 of 1988 with regard to the turnover of Rs. 1,21,05,095 which included the turnover of Rs. 20,23,290 was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal in T.A. No. 454 of 1989, which was subsequently remanded to the assessing officer. Similarly the order of remand dated September 20, 1989, made by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 454 of 1989 does not cover the turnover of Rs. 20,23,290. Consequently, in the present proceedings initiated against the order of the assessing officer dated November 30, 1990, passed pursuant to the order of remand dated September 20, 1989, in T.A. No. 454 of 1989, it is not at all open to the petitioners to canvass the correctness of the order of the assessing officer dated August 18, 1989, which has become final. In these circumstances, the appellate authority and the Tribunal rightly held that the question relating to the turnover of Rs. 20,43,522.90 cannot be agitated in the present proceedings as the order of the appellate authority dated March 27, 1989, in Appeal No. 57 of 1988 and the order of the assessing officer dated August 18, 1989 in respect of the turnover of Rs. 20,43,522.90 has already become final.
3. Mr. Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that subsequent to the order of remand dated September 20, 1989, in T.A. No. 454 of 1989, the orders of the assessing authority and the appellate authority, are merged in the order of the Tribunal and therefore, they are entitled to challenge the entire assessment order, including the assessment made at the enhanced rate on a turnover of Rs. 20,23,290. However, we are unable to accept the above contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, because the assessing officer is entitled to proceed with the matter, pursuant to the order of remand made by the appellate authority on March 27, 1989, in Appeal No. 57 of 1988 and further, it does not alter the tax liability. Inasmuch as the turnover of Rs. 20,23,290 was not at all the subject-matter of the appeal in T.A. No. 454 of 1989 and consequently, the order of remand dated September 20, 1989, in T.A. No. 454 of 1989 does not cover the said turnover of Rs. 20,23,290, we cannot countenance the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners based on the theory of merger. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the assessment made at the enhanced rate on a turnover of Rs. 20,43,520.90 is correct and the order of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with in this tax case revision. There is no merit in this revision and it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.
4. Petition dismissed.