Does a command following a prohibition imply permissibility, or does the ruling revert to what it was previously, and are there any useful references regarding this issue?

The command following a prohibition does not always necessitate obligation. Rather, it restores the ruling to what it was before the prohibition. So, if the act was permissible, it returns to being permissible; and if it was obligatory, it returns to being obligatory. This is the preponderant opinion chosen by a group of meticulous scholars.