JAGADISAN, J.

The petitioner is a firm of partnership dealing in hides and skins. They were assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Moore Market, No. 1, under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, on their turnover for the year 1955-56. The order of assessment was passed on 22nd November, 1956. They filed an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer, and the appeal was pending when Madras Act I of 1959 came into force. The appeal was transferred to the file of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of section 61(2) of Act I of 1959. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner noticed that the assessing authority had omitted to include in the total turnover certain purchases up to 6th September, 1955, for an amount of Rs. 53, 205-29 nP., and that the sales of the assessee through W. A. Beardsell and Co. for an amount of Rs. 47, 725-11-6 were treated as sales in the course of export and excluded from the turnover. The appellate authority issued notice to the assessee on 10th July, 1959, to show cause why the turnover should not be revised and enhanced. The assessee objected but to no purpose. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner revised the turnover which resulted in enhancement of the assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. They did not press their claim regarding the turnover of Rs. 53, 205-29 nP., which was originally claimed to be purchased outside the State. In respect of the turnover of Rs. 47, 725-11-6 the Appellant Tribunal took the view that the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that it related to local sales was correct. The assessee however urged the contention before the Tribunal that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to enhance the turnover fixed by the Deputy Commerical Tax Officer. The Tribunal upheld this objection of the assessee and set aside the order of assessment of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. This revision petition has been preferred by the State, and the contention urged on their behalf is that the appellate powers of the Assistant Commissioner are governed by the provisions of section 31(3) of Madras Act I of 1959 which specifically provide for enhancement.Under the old Act the power of the appellate authority is that prescribed under section 11 of the Act. In so far as it is material it reads as follows :-

"(1) Any assessee objecting to an assessment made on him under section 9, sub-section (2), may within thirty days from the date on which he was served with notice of the assessment, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed.

(3) The appellate authority may, after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders on the appeal as such authority may think fit." *

The right of appeal was conferred only on the assessee objecting to an assessment by the assessing authority and the appellate authority can pass orders only on that appeal, the subject-matter of which could only be the assessment against the assessee and not the order on any assessment favourable to the assessee. Indeed it is not disputed that the Commercial Tax Officer, the prescribed appellate authority under section 11 of the old Act, could not pass prejudicial orders against the assessee in an appeal filed by him. But section 12 of the Act clothed the Commercial Tax Officer with powers of revision. That officer may suo motu call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the 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. Where the officer wanted to exercise this revisional power he should afford an opportunity to the assessee to show cause against the proposed assessment. Though the officer had power to en