JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. This revision under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is directed against the order dated August 22, 1995 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal No. 20 of 1992 along with Appeals Nos. 19 and 21 of 1992.
2. The respondent was subjected to a provisional assessment in respect of sale of aluminium foils, which were sold by it by charging sales tax at 1 per cent. The assessing officer was of the view that it was taxable at 4 per cent and, therefore, he directed the respondent-assessee to make payment of difference of tax vide his provisional assessment order dated December 19, 1990.
3. Against the above provisional assessment order dated December 19, 1990, the assessee-respondent preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who after hearing both the parties allowed the appeal vide his order dated May 4, 1991 and set aside the provisional assessment order dated December 19, 1990 holding that the provisional assessment order dated December 19, 1990 was not a speaking order inasmuch as the assessing officer has failed to disclose as to how the sales tax is payable on aluminium foils at the rate of 4 per cent. The assessing officer was directed to make fresh assessment in accordance with the law.
4. Thereafter, the assessing officer filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal which also came to be rejected vide judgment dated August 22, 1995. The Tribunal held that since the assessing officer has passed a regular assessment order in respect of the entire period and, therefore, the question of determining the validity of provisional assessment has become academic.
5. It is not disputed before me that final assessment order has been passed and that is subjected to remedial process by the aggrieved party. It is also not disputed before me that while remanding the matter, the Deputy Commissioner has not given any specific finding with regard to the rate of tax applicable in the instant case on the disputed turnover. The matter was remanded only on the ground that the provisional assessment order was a non-speaking order. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the regular assessment order was founded on the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which binds the assessing officer affecting his independent conclusions in the course of regular assessment proceedings. In these circumstances, when regular assessment order has come into existence, there is no need to examine the validity of provisional assessment order dated December 19, 1990 passed by the assessing officer, which was set aside and which otherwise would have been subjected to regular assessment. The parties shall be governed by the outcome of regular assessment proceedings.
6. In this view of the matter, I find no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
