JUDGMENT

C.A. No. 2798/83 is, taken on board.

2. These two appeals relate to different assessments under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Act No. VI of 1957), for short the Act The respondent -assessee is a registered dealer carrying on business in ground-nut oil seeds and cotton seeds. The appeals relate to "cotton lint". The respondent was assessed under S.5(l) for the assessment years 1967-68, 1970-71 and 1971-72, the last of which was on November 29, 1975 as "cotton" unclassified general goods at 3%. In similar circumstances, when the other assessees carried the matter in revision to the High Court in Alimchand Topandas Oil Mills v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 37 STC 603, the High Court of A. P. held that cotton lint comes under "cotton waste", in Entry 69 of Schedule I and be comes exigible to tax at 1% at the relevant time. Relying upon the decision, the respondent-assessee made a representation in May, 1976 under S. 20(2) of the Act requesting the Dy. Commissioner to revise the assessments. Initially even without numbering the revisions the Dy. Commissioner had dismissed them. But, on appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) by its order dated November 18, 1977 remitted the cages to the Dy. Commissioner directing to number the cases and to dispose them of according to law. On receipt thereof, the Dy. Commissioner by his order dated October 14, 1980 again dismissed the revisions. The respondent assessee carried in revision to the STAT which by its order dated October 16, 1984, allowed the revisions applying the ratio in Alimchands case and directed reassessment under Entry 69 of Schedule I. On revision, the High Court by impugned order dated 4-4-1985, dismissed them in-limine. Thus these appeals by special leave.

3. The primary question in these cases is whether a revision under Section 20(2) is maintainable at the instance of the assessee. Section 20 provides at the relevant time thus :

"20. Revision by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and other prescribed authorities:. (l)The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes may suo motu call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority, officer or person subordinate to it, under the provisions of this Act, including sub-section (2) of this section* [and if such order proceeding recorded is (prejudicial to the interests of revenue), may take such enquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of the this Act, may initiate proceedings to revise, modify or set aside such order or proceeding] and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.

Sub-section (2) of S. 20 gives power similar to that in sub-section (1), to the Joint Commissioner, Dy. Commissioner And the Commercial Tax Officer in the case of orders passed or proceedings recorded by the authorities or officers or persons subordinate to them.

*Sub-s for words for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order as to the regularity of such proceeding by Act 18 of 1985, w.e.f. 1-7-1985."

4. The question whether the assessee has a right to make an application for the exercise of suo motu power by the Commissioner calls for consideration in the light of the other provisions in the Act, expressly providing for a right of appeal to the assessee. Under S. 19 of the Act a right to appeal to the appellate authority against original orders or proceedings of certain authorities, has been given to the aggrieved dealer. Section 21 also gives a right of appeal, to the aggrieved dealer to the Appellate Tribunal postulating that "any dealer objecting to an order passed or proceeding recorded by any prescribed authority on appeal under S. 19 or S. 20(2) may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within 60 days from the date on which the order or proceeding was served on him". Thus the statute itself has given a right to the dealer to object to an order passed or proceeding recorded under the Act, which is prejudicial to him, by filing an appeal against