As seen from the above, the dealer-respondent had filed the very same statement that was filed before the revisional authority to the pre-revision notice that was issued by him before this forum also. In the statement that was filed before us at the time of hearing also disclosed a turnover of Rs.35,00,132/- as taxable turnover and in which the steel forms a part of the turnover i.e the purchase value of Steel was Rs.18,71,302/- to which 8% gross profit was added and the total deemed sale value was worked out to Rs.20,21,006/- and it was taxable at 4% and the tax due was worked out as Rs.80,840/- and it is not known how SC due was also worked out by the dealerrespondent to an extent of Rs.12,126/-. So when the dealer-respondent himself had admitted the liability with reference to the steel that had been purchased in his statement both before the revisional authority and also before us, at the time of hearing it is not known how the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had passed order without taking into consideration the above statement which had been admitted by the dealerrespondent himself to an extent of Rs.35,00,132/-. If the portion relating to Steel is deducted an amount of Rs.14,79,126/- which had been assessed at the time of
