The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of revision initiated by calling for records should be construed as falling within the meaning of 'shall be exercisable' under section 22-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 10th January, 1983, of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore (Commissioner), in Case No. SMR. 7/81-82 revising the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), bangalore Division, Bangalore (DC), and restoring the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, chitradurga (CTO ).

( 2 ) FOR the calendar year 1973 which is also the assessment year, the assessee filed his return before the CTO under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) (the act), inter alia showing a turnover of Rs. 1,53,952. 41 as purchase return of tamarind seeds. On an examination of that return, the CTO completed his assessment on 22nd April, 1975, bringing to tax the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,53,952. 41 under section 6 of the Act. Against the said order of the CTO the petitioner filed an appeal in Appeal No. 77/75-76 before the DC, who by his order dated 23rd June, 1975, allowed the same and directed the deletion of levy of purchase tax on the aforesaid purchase turnover of Rs. 1,53,952. 41 with which claim only we are concerned in this case. In allowing the said appeal of the assessee the DC relied on a Division Bench ruling of this court in State v. B. Raghurama Shetty [1975] 35 STC 360.

( 3 ) ON 19th August, 1975, the Commissioner who is conferred with the suo motu power of revision under section 22-A of the Act, called for the records in the said appeal from the DC which were received by him on 21st August, 1975. On receipt of those records, they were placed before the Commissioner with an office note thereon to the effect that the matter be pursued after the Supreme Court renders its decision in the appeal filed by the State against the decision of this court in State v. B. Raghurama Shetty [1975] 35 STC 360 and the same was approved by the commissioner on 30th August, 1975. On 24th March, 1981, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State in Raghurama Shetty's case AIR1981 SC 1206 , 1981 (1 )SCALE571 , (1981 )2 SCC564 , [1981 ]3 SCR280 , [1981 ]47 STC369 (SC ), 1981 (13 )UJ361 (SC ) and reversed the decision of this Court.

( 4 ) ON 27th May, 1981, the Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the assessee proposing to revise the order of the DC under section 22-A of the Act for the detailed reasons stated therein, which was opposed by him on diverse grounds. On affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the Commissioner by his order dated 10th January, 1983, has reversed the order of the dc and has restored the order of CTO. Hence, this appeal by the assessee under section 24 of the act.

( 5 ) SRI K. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contends that the suo motu revisional proceedings completed beyond the period of four years from the date of the order of dc within which period only such power could be exercised under section 22-A (2) of the Act was barred by time, illegal and impermissible. Sri Srinivasan maintains that the earlier Division bench ruling of this Court in S. Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore, bangalore [1967] 19 STC 257 that interpreted the earlier provision was distinguishable and if not distinguishable being opposed to the express language of the provision calls for reconsideration by a larger bench of this Court.

( 6 ) SRI S. Rajendra Babu, learned Government Advocate appearing for the revenue, refuting the contention of Sri Srinivasan contends that the period of four years had to be reckoned from the day the Commissioner called for records and not from the day the order was actually made by him and the ratio in Subba Rao's case [1967] 19 STC 257 governs the question and that ruling followed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in State of Gujarat v. Jamnagar motor Stores [1974] 33 STC 353 does not call for reconsideration.

( 7 ) SECTION 21 of the Act, as originally enacted, conferred power of revision on