RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.

This is a revision petition filed by the assessees against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The assessees are dealers, among others, in pepper having their head office at Bombay and a branch at Kozhikode. In respect of their turnover for the assessment year 1950-51 they submitted returns in form A-3 disclosing sales to the extent of Rs. 3, 94, 788-11-0 to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Calicut, who was the assessing officer. Out of this figure they claimed exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 4, 054-1-9. They also produced their ledger, day book, journals etc., to the assessing officer who checked up their accounts and substantially accepted their return and assessed them on a net turnover of Rs. 3, 93, 486-13-6 by his order dated 15th December, 1951. Subsequently the Commercial Tax Officer, Malabar North, called for and examined the record of the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer under section 12(1)(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and finding that certain sales effected by the assessees which had been disclosed in their accounts had been incorrectly treated as not liable to inclusion in their turnover, issued notice to the assessees on 28th February, 1953, why the assessment should not be rectified. After verifying the figures from the accounts which were called for, he added a sum of Rs. 5, 07, 753-9-0 to the assessable turnover and a demand for tax on this basis followed.

The assessees took this order in appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal where they raised two points for its consideration. The first was that the Commercial Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment in the manner in which he had done and the second that on the merits the turnover of the sales which were included in their assessment by the Commercial Tax Officer was exempt from inclusion under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution as being sales "in the course of export." The Appellate Tribunal rejected both the contentions and confirmed the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. Hence the revision.Mr. Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioners (assessees) raised the same two contentions before us as had been put forward before the Tribunal.

The first point relates to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer under section 12(1) of the Act which is in these terms :

"12. (1) The Commercial Tax Officer may -

(i) suo motu, or

(ii) in cases in which an appeal does not lie to him under section 11, 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." *

The argument urged on behalf of the petitioners is that on a proper construction of this provisions, the Commercial Tax Officer could not covert himself into an assessing authority and re-assess what is virtually an escaped turnover. Having regard to the facts of the present case, it is not necessary to define exhaustively the scope of the revisional power under section 12(1) of the Act or to consider whether it could enable the Commercial Tax Officer to assess an escaped turnover. We are making this reservation particularly in view of the fact that this question is awaiting consideration at the hands of a Full Bench in certain appeals which are pending (Since reported as The State of Madras v. Louis Dreyfus and Company Ltd. at page 318 supra). In the present case, the sales whose turnover was included in the petitioners' turnover by the Commercial Tax Officer were all in the books of account produced by the assessees before the assessing officer. The assessees however had contended, when the matter was before him, that these sales were entitled to the constitutional exemption under Article 286(1)(b) of the Cons