The time limit for exercising the Commissioner's power to revise orders under section 21(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act is determined by the initiation of the proceedings, and the power to revise and the power to call for records are facets of one single power.

( 1 ) IN these appeals we are called upon to interpret the true scope of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 21 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (to be referred to as the "act" hereinafter ).

( 2 ) THE facts material for the purpose of deciding the points in controversy lie within a narrow compass. The assessee (common assessee in both the appeals) is a dealer in hardware and iron materials; for the periods from 1st October, 1957 to 31st March, 1958, and 1st April, 1958 to 31st March, 1959, the Commercial Tax Officer determined his turnover of manufactured goods at Rs. 23,625 and Rs. 53,375 respectively; out of theses, he excluded Rs. 13,000 and Rs. 21,000 respectively for the two periods mentioned above as being turnovers relating to sales of agricultural implements and thus exempted from taxation.

( 3 ) IN the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, it was contended that the entire turnovers relating to manufactured goods were exempt from levy of sales tax as they relate to sale of agricultural implements. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes accepted that contention and allowed the exemption prayed for.

( 4 ) SOMETIME thereafter the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in exercise of his revisional power under section 21 (2) of the Act, issued notice to the assessee calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not revise the orders made by the Commercial Tax Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, as according to him (the Commissioner) the commercial Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes erred in law in granting the exemption in question as according to the Commissioner only the sales of agricultural implements which are the products of cottage industries that are exempt from tax. In spite of the several opportunities given, the assessee did not adduce any evidence to show that the implements in question were the products of cottage industries. Hence the Commissioner revised the orders mentioned above and levied tax on the assessee on the turnovers mentioned above.

( 5 ) IN this Court, the finding of the Commissioner that only sales of agricultural implements which are the products of cottage industries that are exempt from tax was not challenged. It was also not disputed that the assessee had failed to produce any evidence to show that the agricultural implements sold by him are the products of cottage industries.

( 6 ) MR. K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the assessee at the hearing of these appeals, did not contest the legality of the Commissioner's order in so far as it relates to the order of the Deputy commissioner of Commercial Taxes. That means that the assessee can have no compliant in so far as the Commissioner revised the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Mr. Srinivasan confined his attack against the Commissioner's order to the extent he revised the order of the Commercial tax Officer. According to Mr. Srinivasan, the Commissioner's power to revise the Commercial tax Officer's order had been lost as the same had not been exercised within four years from the date of the Commercial Tax Officer's order. It may be noted that the Commercial Tax Officer assessed the assessee on 9th August, 1960. The Commissioner issued notice under section 21 (2)of the Act on 3rd March, 1964, and the impugned order was made on 19th February, 1965. If it is the date of the order that is relevant under section 21 (3) of the Act, then Mr. Srinivasan is right in his contention that the proceedings taken by the Commissioner is barred under section 21 (3)of the Act. If, on the other hand, the relevant date is the initiation of the proceeding under section 21 (2) of the Act, then the order made by the Commissioner is within time. Therefore, we have to decide as to which one of two dates is the relevant date.

( 7 ) IN support of his contention that the Commissioner's power to revise the order of the commercial Tax Officer is barred by time, Mr.