( 1 ) THESE five appeals involve common questions of law and fact and are thus heard and disposed of by this common judgment. Brief overview of facts leading to the Iis: (1) The appellant (Ass,essee) is a dealer in beedies. It was initially assessed for the years 1985-86 to 1989-90 (5 years) on nil taxable turnovers by the C. T. O. , Nizamabad-II. (2) The successor C. T. O. reopened the assessments under Section 14 (4) of the APGST Act, 1957 (for short, the act )- Rejecting the plea of the assessee, the C. T. O. held that the assessee is the last purchaser of beedi leaves within the State and brought to tax assessed Gross turnover and Net turnover for the five assessment years. He also imposed penalties for all the assessment years. (3) Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals to the appellate Deputy commissioner (CT), Secunderabad (hereinafter, the first appellate authority ). On an analysis of the record, the Appellate Authority held that the assessee was a purchaser of finished beedies and was never a purchaser of beedi leaves let alone the last purchaser. Consequently the appeals were allowed and the revised assessment orders and consequent penalties set aside. (4) By the orders under appeal the commissioner of Commercial taxes exercising revisional power under Section 20 (1) of the Act invalidated the appellate orders in respect of all the five assessment years. While directing that the cost of the beedi leaves shall be subjected to Sales-tax at the hands of the assessee and at the quantum assessed by the C. T. O. the revisional Authority confirmed the orders of the Appellate Authority to the extent the latter set aside the penalty orders for the 5 years.

( 2 ) THIS batch of appeals arise from the revisional orders of the Commissioner of commercial Taxes dated 24-9-1994 passed under Section 20 (1) of the Act.

( 3 ) THE contentions urged by sri P. Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the appellant, inter alia, in brief, are as under: (I) The assessee s agent M/s. Balaji and Co. having paid the tax on the beedi leaves for the 5 assessment years in question, there is no prejudice to the interests of revenue, warranting exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 20 (1) of the Act. (II) The finding of the Revisional authority that the assessee is the last purchaser of the beedi leaves in the State and thus liable to tax, is based on a clearly erroneous construction of the agreement between the assessee and m/s. Balaji and Co. , besides being contrary to the record. (III) The order of the C. T. O. reopening the assessments under Section 14 (4) of the Act was ultra vires the scope of his power under that provision. This aspect, though canvassed before the 1st. Appellate Authority, was not dealt with by that authority, who proceeded to grant relief on other and substantive grounds. This aspect was canvassed in the detailed objections of the assessee to the notice of the revisional Authority proposing revision. It was however not dealt with. Had this aspect been considered the orders of the C. T. O. reopening the assessments were liable to have been declared non est and consequently the revisions liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) IN the light of the analysis following, the other contentions urged in the appeals are not recorded. Analysis of the relevant factual matrix qua the contentions in the appeals:

( 5 ) AS the issues are identical, the facts in special Appeal No. 50 of 1999 are considered for analysis. (A) This appeal is directed against the revisional order of the commissioner of Commercial taxes in respect of the assessment year for 1985-86. (B) The Assessing Authority by the order dt. 29-3-98 determined the total turnover of the sale of beedies at Rs. 27,05,580. 00. Beedies being exempted from liability to Sales- tax, the total turnover was exempt and the Assessing Authority thereupon passed a nil assessment order! This decision was arrived at on the basis of the finding that "there are no beedi leav