The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers under S.12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 are wider than those under R.17(1) but must be exercised subject to the conditions under which the power under R.17(1) can be exercised, particularly in relation to escaped turnover.

1. The same question arises for determination in these writ applications and I am disposing them by a common judgment. Shortly stated, the question is whether the Deputy Commissioner acting under S.12(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, can revise an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after the period prescribed by R.17(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939 has expired, on the ground that turnover had escaped assessment.

2. The year of assessment in each of these cases is 1953-54. On the expiry of nearly three years after the end of that year, notices were issued to the petitioners, apparently under R.17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, to show cause why turnover which it was alleged had escaped assessment should not be assessed. Though the petitioners showed cause, the proceedings ended against the petitioners in that assessments were made relating to the alleged escaped turnovers. The petitioners appealed and the appellate authority by Ext. P4 in each of these cases accepted the contention of the petitioners and held that there has been no escape of turnover, that the turnover in question is not taxable and therefore set aside the orders of assessments passed by the Sales Tax Officer. The order Ext. P4 in O.P. No. 16 of 1963 was passed on 18-9-1958 and communicated to the petitioner therein on 3-10-1958, and the order Ext. P-4 in O.P. No. 108 of 1963 was passed on 16-9-1958 and communicated to the petitioner on 2-10-1958. Nearly four years after the dates of communication of the orders Exts. P4 in each of these cases, orders have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner which are Exts. P5 in each of these cases and which have been communicated to the petitioners on 30-9-1962. By Exts. P5 orders, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside Exts. P4 orders and has directed the appellate authority to decide the question afresh.

3. The short contention that is raised is that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to do what he has done by Ext. P5 in each of these cases. This contention was sought to be supported on three grounds. The first of these is that since the turnover in question is escaped turnover according to the revenue, action relating to this could and must have been taken only on or before 31-3-1957 the assessment year having ended on 31-3-1954, i.e. within three years of the expiry of the assessment year. It was also urged that the orders Ext. P5 have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in that, they were passed without notice to the petitioners. Thirdly it was contended that the particular Deputy Commissioner who passed the orders Ext. P5 was not notified to be the authority competent to exercise such powers. I am not dealing with the last two grounds in this judgment for, I think the case can be disposed of on the first of the grounds relied on by counsel on behalf of the petitioners.

4. It is necessary to read S.12(2) as also R.17(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, and Rules, 1939. 12 (2). The Deputy Commissioner may

(i) suo mote, or

(ii) in respect of any order passed or proceeding recorded by the Commercial Tax Officer under sub-section (1) or any other provision of this Act and against which no appeal has been preferred to the Appellate Tribunal under S.12-A, on application, call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of this Act by any officer subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order, or as to the regularity of such proceeding, and may pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit."

17 (1) If for any reason the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer or licensee has escaped assessment to the tax in any year or if the licence fee has escaped levy in any year, the assessing authority or licensing authority, as the case may be, (subject to the provisions in sub-rule 1-A) may, at any time w