Revisional jurisdiction can be expressed u/s 32 also.

The main and the substantial point raised on behalf of the assessee, the petitioner in this revision petition, relates to the question as to whether the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of revision under section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959 (referred to as the Act in this judgment), is entitled to revise the order of the assessing authority where the latter has not communicated the order of assessment to the assessee.

The assessee, Messrs. A.M. Safrulla & Co., are dealers in hides and skins. In respect of the year of assessment 1954 — 55, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer by his order, dated 12th October, 1959, held that in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in Noor Mohammed’s case1, no portion of the turnover was liable to assessment to sales tax, as the petitioner was a non-licensee. As the order of assessment did not result in any tax liability, consequent upon the net turnover being determined as nil, this order of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was not communicated to the assessee and no demand under section 8-B (2) or 3 (2) of the Act of 1939 was issued to the assessee. After the decision of the Supreme Court, in State of Madras v. M.A. Moor Mohammed &338; Co.2, reversing the decision of the Madras High Court referred to above the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, after complying with the necessary formalities and after issue of notice to the assessee exercised his powers of revision under section 32 of the Act. By his order, dated 13th July, 1961, he held that the assessee was liable to pay sales tax on a net turnover of Rs. 15,62,076-15-4 at 3 pies per rupee for the assessment year 1954-55. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal but without any success.

Even though several points were urged before the Tribunal, learned Counsel confined himself to the question of the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner while acting under section 32 of the Act. Arguments before us both on behalf of the assessee, as well as on behalf of the State were addressed on the footing that the provisions of the Act of 1959 would govern the instant case. We are also of the opinion that that is the correct position in view of the fact that the order of assessment itself was passed on 12th October, 1959 after the Madras Act I of 1959 (Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959) had come into force and further the Deputy Commissioner exercised his powers of revision in July 1961.

Section 32 of the Act runs as follows:

" Section 32.- Special powers of the Deputy Commissioner : (I) The Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion, call for and examine an order passed or proceeding recorded by the appropriate authority under section 12, section 14, section 15, or sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 16 and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act may pass such, order thereon as he thinks fit.

(2) The Depity Commissioner shall not pass any order under sub-section (1), if-

(a) the time for appeal against the order has not expired ;

(b) the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal, or of a revision in the High Court ; or

(c) more than four years have expired after the passing of the order.

(3) No order under this section adversely affecting a person shall be passed unless that person has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

The relevant portion of section 31, relating to the right of appeal of the assessee runs as follows:-

" Section 31: Appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner :- (1) Any person objecting to an order passed by the appropriate authority under section 12, section 14, section 15, sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 16, section 18, section 23, section 27, sub-section (4) of section 41, or sub-section (3) of section 42, may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him and in the manne