ORDER This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner No. 1 is a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling bidis at Saugor. The petitioner No. 2 is managing partner of that firm. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur Region, Jabalpur, determined the turnover of the business of the firm for the period between 1st June, 1947, and 12th November, 1947, at Rs. 5,26,874-7-9 and assessed the firm to pay sales tax on that basis. The firm presented an appeal before the Sales Tax Commissioner but withdrew it on 15th May, 1950. 3. On 16th July, 1950, the petitioner No. 2 received a notice from the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax which stated that the latter had been directed by the Sales Tax Commissioner to re-examine the assessment previously made and which called upon the petitioner No. 2 to attend at the office of the Assistant Commissioner on 21st August, 1950, with all accounts, vouchers, bills, cash memos etc., for the very period for which the firm had already been assessed. 4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue a notice of this kind to them and to require them to produce the various documents referred to in the notice. On behalf of the State, Shri Naik states that the Assistant Commissioner could issue such a notice under Section 15(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, by virtue of a delegation by the Commissioner of his power under that section to the Assistant Commissioner. What Section 15(1) says is as follows :- "The Commissioner may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, require any dealer to produce before him any accounts, registers or documents, relevant to the financial transactions of a dealer, including accounts, registers or documents relating to profits derived from the business of any firm, or to furnish any information, relating to the stocks of goods of the dealer, or purchases, sales and deliveries of goods by him as may be necessary for the purposes of this Act". It is therefore clear that the power of the Commissioner, and consequently also of the Assistant Commissioner, to require any person to produce for his inspection the documents referred to in Section 15(1) is exercisable only when it is necessary to inspect those documents "for the purpose of this Act". 5. Shri Naik then point out that under Section 22(5) of the Act the Commissioner has power to revise any order passed under this Act and that as he (the Commissioner) wanted the inspection and examination of the petitioners' account books with a view to ascertain whether the assessment should be revised, what the Assistant Commissioner was asked to do was a purpose which fell within fell within the Act. It seems to us to be clear that what Section 22(5) contemplates is the exercise of a judicial power by the Commissioner and sub-section (7) of Section 22 makes it clear that that power cannot be exercised without hearing the person likely to be affected. It is accepted in this case that the petitioners were not heard before the Commissioner sent the particular direction were to the Assistant Commissioner. 6. To get out of this difficulty, Shri Naik stated that the direction given by the Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner was not a judicial order but merely an administrative one. We may point out that there is no provision in the Sales Tax Act for making an administrative order or direction of this kind and since the Commissioner has directed the Assistant Commissioner to act under Section 15(1) of the Act, his order must be help to be judicial and not merely administrative. Were we to hold that it was an administrative order, then there was no power in the Commissioner or in the Assistant Commissioner to require the petitioners to produce their account books and other documents. On the other hand, they could exercise the particular power only if the order were a judicial one. We are not prepared to hold that the Commissioner in making the order did something which he was incompetent under the Act to do. The only error committed by him was in not hearing the petitioners before taking the particular step. On the other hand, they could exercise the particular power only if the order were a judicial one. We are not prepared to hold that the Commissioner in making the order did something which he was incompetent under the Act to do. The only error committed by him was in not hearing the petitioners before taking the particular step. For these reasons, we are of opinion that the proceedings commenced by the Assistant Commissioner at the instance of the Commissioner are without jurisdiction and that consequently the petitioners are not bound to comply with the notice served upon them by the Assistant Commissioner. It would of course be open to the Commissioner to issue a notice to the petitioners under Section 22(7) of the Act and, after hearing them, to decide whether the case calls for the reopening of the assessment already made. Accordingly we allow this petition with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.