OBUL REDDI, J. - The State has preferred this revision against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal Appeal No. 742/67.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee on grounds among others that the revisional powers exercised by the Deputy Commissioner were not exercised suo motu but were put in motion on an office note put up by the staff and that the exercise of revisional powers under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) on the basis of an office note "is clearly contrary to the spirit of the provisions of section 20 and therefore the assessment order made by the Deputy Commissioner was against the statutory provisions". The other ground on which the appeal was allowed was that the Deputy Commissioner even before he heard the objections of the respondent-assessee to the show cause notice made up his mind to revise the assessment as is borne out by his letter to the Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue, with the result that the well-known rule of audi alteram partem has been violated thus resulting in manifest injustice to the respondent-assessee.

The Government Pleader for sales tax cases has assailed the order under revision on the ground that the Tribunal was in error in observing that the revisional authority cannot be said to have acted suo motu when he acts on information furnished to him by the office or other sources and the interpretation placed upon the words 'suo motu' by the Tribunal is not correct in law and does not accord with the accepted interpretation of that expression. It is also sought to be contended that the Tribunal was not justified in observing that the Deputy Commissioner had pre-judged the issue even before he heard the respondent-assessee. The order is sought to be sustained by Mr. T. Ramam, appearing for the respondent, relying upon the findings recorded by the Tribunal. To appreciate the contentions put forth it is necessary to state the facts leading up to the filing of the revision.

The respondent is a firm by name Messrs J. Papaiah Ch. Simhachalam Company, Rajahmundry, carrying on business as commission agents for sale of potatoes, onions, garlic, ginger etc. It submitted its returns on the turnover for the year 1962-63 showing a net turnover of Rs. 1,45,816.27. Though the total turnover was more than Rs. 26,00,000, a major part of it was commission agency business in respect of which exemption was claimed and granted. The net turnover determined by the Commercial Tax Officer was Rs. 2,05,876.35. A sum of Rs. 50,000 was included in both the gross and the net turnovers as estimated turnover of gunnies on the ground that the respondent sold the goods packed in gunnies but did not show the sales of gunnies separately. The respondent preferred an appeal disputing the estimated turnover of gunnies and the appeal was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, in exercise of his powers under section 20 of the Act issued a notice to the respondent proposing to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner went wrong in holding that the turnover relating to gunny bags was not exigible to tax. On receipt of the objections from the respondent the Deputy Commissioner passed an order adding the estimated cost of the gunnies to the turnover as was done by the assessing authority. This order was carried in a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which reversed the order of the Deputy Commissioner for the reasons already stated above. We may now read section 20 of the Act which empowers a Deputy Commissioner also to act suo motu in so far as it is material for the purpose of the case :

"20. (1) The Board of Revenue 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, inc