RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.

These appeals are preferred by the dealer against the order of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, dated February 27, 1999 revising the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool.

It would suffice, for the purpose of all these appeals, if the facts in Special Appeal No. 7 of 1999 are noted. The appellant, a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, was engaged in the manufacture and sale of liquor and beer. For the assessment years 1981-82 to 1985-86 it claimed different treatment for bottles, cartons and other packing material, not at the rate of tax payable on liquor and beer. The appeals preferred by the assessee were allowed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 611 of 1990 and batch. In its order dated September 9, 1993, the Tribunal held that cartons were taxable under entry 19 of the First Schedule and that other packing material were taxable as general goods. According to the appellant, the order of the Tribunal for these assessment years had become final and the State had not preferred tax revision cases against those orders.

The Commercial Tax Officer passed assessment orders for the subsequent assessment years, aggrieved by which the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner who, by his orders dated May 2, 1995 and August 17, 1995, allowed the appeals in respect of cartons and other packing material referring to the order of the Tribunal without noticing that the order of the Tribunal related to the very same assessment years. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes not only sought to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for the assessment years 1981-82, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 but also for the eight assessment years from 1986-87 to 1993-94 except in respect of the assessment year 1992-93. For these eight assessment years, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner had granted relief in respect of cartons and other packing material relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case in T.A. No. 611 of 1990 and batch dated September 9, 1993.

The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, issued common show-cause notice dated January 29, 1999 proposing to set aside the relief granted by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on cartons, etc., and, on receipt of the appellant's objections thereto, passed orders dated February 27, 1999 holding that the appellant had not placed any material before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to conclude regarding the independent transaction in packing material and that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner should have remanded the matter on cartons and packing material also on par with the bottles. The Commissioner observed that the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, relied upon by the appellant, would only apply for that assessment year and could not be accepted as a principle. He remanded the matters with a direction to the appellant to appear before the assessing authority with all material evidence in his possession. The Commissioner further observed that, if required, the assessing authority should also visit the office of the appellant to enable them to produce all the records, that he should conduct proper verification and pass orders thereafter.

Before us, the order of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, is under challenge. Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the scope of revision under section 20(1) of the APGST Act is confined only to an examination of the record of any order or proceeding recorded by any authority subordinate to him; that the scope of enquiry was limited only to the material on record and that a new case could not be made out for the first time in revisional proceedings.

Learned counsel would submit that there is no material on record to show that cartons and other packing material used by the dealer are mono-cartons and not secondary packing material and, since the assessing authority had not record