The revisional powers under the Sales Tax Act are distinct from assessment powers, allowing for the correction of illegalities without infringing on the assessment of escaped turnover.

1 The judgment of the court was delivered by Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J. -- These Tax Revision Cases have been referred to a Full Bench to consider the correctness of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Kassim Kannu v. State of Kerala (26 STC 530), particularly, in view of the later Division Bench ruling in C. C. Transport Company v. The State of Kerala (40 STC 444). The question involved is regarding the scope of the revisional jurisdiction under the Sales Tax Act, and Whether in exercising the same, it is open to the revisional authority to trench upon the power and jurisdiction of getting at the escaped turnover and bringing the same to tax 'or' assessment.
T.R.C. No. 12 of 1978
M/s Madras Rubber Factory Limited, Kottayam is the petitioner in this Tax Revision. The factory has its headquarters in Madras and its purchase depots in Kottayam and Calicut. The assessment year concerned is 1970-71. Rubber is taxable at the last purchase point. Rubber is locally purchased from Kerala State and sold in Madras. The goods are despatched to the Madras Factory along with 'N' forms under R.43(B) of the Rubber Rules. These forms have been recognised by the proviso to R.35 Clause.13 sub clause (b) of the Sales Tax Rules as sufficient to operate as a delivery note for the purposes of sub-s.2 of S.29 of the Act. The Sales Tax Officer did not tax these transactions, as he took the view that they constituted transactions of interstate sale not liable to be taxed under the local sales tax legislation, having regard to S.5A of the Act, which reads as follows: -
"5A. Levy of purchase tax.--(1) Every dealer who in the course of his business purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person any goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act, in circumstances in which no tax is payable under S.5, and either--
(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise; or
(b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State; or
(c) despatches them to any place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of interstate trade or commerce shall, whatever be the quantum of the turnover relating to such purchase for a year, pay tax on the taxable turnover relating to such purchase for that year at the rates mentioned in S.5.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s.(1), a dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of a non resident dealer) purchasing goods, the sale of which is liable to tax under S.5, shall not be liable to pay tax under sub-s.(1) if his total turnover for a year is less than twenty thousand rupees:
Provided that where the total turnover of such dealer for the year in respect of the goods mentioned in clause (i) of sub-s.(1) of S.5 is not less than two thousand five hundred rupees, he shall be liable to pay tax on the taxable turnover in respect of those goods.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, a dealer referred to in sub-s.(1), who purchases goods, the sale of which is liable to tax under clause (ii) of sub-s.(1) of S.5, and whose total turnover for a year is not less than twenty thousand rupees but not more than twenty five thousand rupees may, at his option, instead of paying the tax in accordance with the provisions of sub-s.(1), pay tax at the rate mentioned in clause (i) of sub-s.(1) of S.7 in accordance with the provisions of that section."
The Deputy Commissioner issued notice dated 14th July 1976 to show cause why the revisional powers under S.35 of the Sales Tax Act should not be exercised to set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer. This was objected to by the assessee by his objections dated 22nd July 1976. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 26th July 1976, set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer and remanded the case to the assessing authority for fresh disposal. On appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Deputy Commi