Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. In respect of the asst. yr. 1962-63 the assessee who are dealers in electric and electro medical goods submitted return in Form I under the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 reporting a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 75, 56, 894.89 and Rs. 32, 55, 691.66 respectively. The gross turnover of Rs. 75, 56, 894.89 reported by the assessee include the turnover of Rs. 24, 54, 389.12 which represented import transactions. In the return they did not claim any exemption in respect of this turnover on any ground of or that it represented the sales in the course of import. The Assessing Authority disallowing certain other turnovers which were not included in the taxable turnover determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 57, 77, 434.12 The assessees preferred an appeal to the AAC disputing the liability to tax the turnover of Rs. 24, 76, 195 which was disallowed by the Assessing Authority but did not raise any dispute relating to the turnover of Rs. 24, 54, 389.12 which represented certain transactions in the course of import. When the appeal was pending before the AAC, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Khosla & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes decided on 18th January, 1966 by S.C. which was reported in the Law Journals on 1st May, 1966. Thereafter, after collecting materials relating to the transactions the assessees filed a petition on 27th June, 1966 for permission to raise additional grounds in respect of the turnover of Rs. 24, 54, 389.12 claiming that this turnover which was not disputed by him before the Assessing Authority and not included in the grounds of appeal represented the sales in the course of import on the basis of the decision in Khosla & Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes decided on 18th January, 1966 by S.C. and that therefore they are not liable to pay any tax on the same. The AAC dismissed this petition and proceeded to consider only the turnover that was disputed in the grounds as originally filed. It may be mentioned, that the AAC did give certain reliefs in respect of the turnover disputed by the assessee in the original grounds of appeal. The AAC dismissed this petition and proceeded to consider only the turnover that was disputed in the grounds as originally filed. It may be mentioned, that the AAC did give certain reliefs in respect of the turnover disputed by the assessee in the original grounds of appeal. The assessees preferred a further appeal to the Tribunal in which they had raised a contention that the AAC, in the circumstances of the case, ought to have entertained the additional reliefs asked for and considered the question of liability of the turnover of Rs. 24, 54, 389.12 also on merits. The Tribunal considered that the position of law relating to sales in the course of import was not quite clear prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Khosla & Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes decided on 18th January, 1966 by S.C. and that prior to that judgment the decision of the Madras High Court was against the claim of exemption. The assessees had therefore not claimed exemption at the time when they filed the appeal before the AAC. When the Supreme Court clarified the position and reversed the decision of the Madras High Court, the assessee considered that the said turnover as not liable to tax as sales in the course of import and wanted to claim exemption by filing a petition to raise the additional grounds. The Tribunal also considered that there was no want of diligence on the part of the assessees and that there was reasonable cause for the delay. In this view the Tribunal held that the AAC ought to have permitted the assessees to raise additional grounds and adjudicated upon on the merits of the claim. The Tribunal accordingly remanded the appeal to the AAC for the consideration of the claim in respect of Rs. 24, 54, 389.12 on the basis of the documents produced. It is questioning this direction of the Tribunal that the State has filed this revision petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the Revenue contended that the AAC could not have permitted the assessees to raise the additional grounds in respect of the turnover which was not included at the time when the appeal was originally filed even if he was satisfied that there was reasonable ground for the delay and that therefore the Tribunal could not have directed the AAC to consider the additional grounds. 3. 3. The appeal to the AAC against the order of assessment is provided under s. 31 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 That provision reads as follows : "Sec. 31(1) : Any Person objecting to an order passed by the appropriate authority under ss. 12, 14 and 15, sub-s. (1) and (2) of ss. 16, 18, 23, and 27, sub-s. (4) of s. 41 or sub-s. (3) of s. 42, may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him in the manner prescribed, appeal against such order to the AAC : Provided that the AAC may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the said period : Provided further that in the case of an order under ss. 12, 14 and 15 or sub-Ss. (1) and (2) of s. 16 no appeal shall be entertained under this sub-section unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax admitted by the appellant to be due or of such instalments thereof as might have become payable as the case may be. (2) The appeal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. (3) In disposing of an appeal, the AAC may, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, (a) in the case of an order of assessment : (i) confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or the penalty or both;(ii) set aside the assessment and direct the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment after such further inquiry as may be directed or (iii) pass such other orders as he may think fit; or (b) in the case of any other order, confirm, cancel or vary such order; Provided that at the hearing of any appeal against an order of the assessing authority, the assessing authority shall have the right to be heard either in person or by a representative." * 4. Form I is the form prescribed in respect of the appeal to the AAC. Form I is the form prescribed in respect of the appeal to the AAC. Columns (6) and (7) of Form I which are relevant for purposes of our case, are as follows : "(6) Relief claimed in appeal - (a) Turnover determined by the assessing authority (b) If turnover is disputed (i) Disputed turnover (ii) Tax due on the disputed turnover (c) If rate of tax is disputed : (i) Turnover involved. (ii) Amount of tax disputed. (d) Any other relief claimed. (7) Grounds of appeal etc." * 5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that under the first proviso to Clause (1) of s. 31 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 the AAC had power only to excuse the delay in filing an appeal itself and if a turnover was not disputed in the form of appeal preferred by the assessee, the AAC could not permit the raising of any dispute with reference to a turnover not disputed in the original memorandum of appeal itself. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, contended that when an appeal is preferred, though the assessee has referred only to a particular turnover as the disputed turnover, the entire assessment order was before the AAC and he could either confirm, reduce, enhance or annual the assessment or set aside and direct the Assessing Authority to make a fresh assessment or may pass such other orders as he may think fit as provided under sub-cl. (3) of s. 31 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959. Since the AAC is entitled to confirm, reduce, enhance or annual an assessment itself, he has the jurisdiction to permit additional grounds to be raised even in respect a turnover which was not originally disputed by the assessee before the Assessing Authority or in the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It may be mentioned that while the assessee is given a right of appeal under s. 31 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 to the AAC, and a further right of appeal against the order of the AAC to the Tribunal under s. 36, the Department has no such right to appeal either to the AAC or from his order to the Tribunal. But, a power is given to the Dy. But, a power is given to the Dy. CIT under s. 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax, Act, 1959 to suo motu revise the assessment order in respect of which an appeal had not been preferred to the AAC. In the case of an order made by the AAC, a similar power of suo motu revision is given to the Board of Revenue under s. 34 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, only a right to file a petition for review of the Tribunal's order and a right to file a revision to the High Court are given to the Department. S. 31 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959, in our opinion, therefore, confers a jurisdication on the AAC to enhance the taxable turnover when the matter comes before him by way of appeal by the assessee. But for this specific power given to him to enhance the taxable turnover, the AAC's jurisdication would be circumscribed by the dispute raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, while confirming, reducing or annulling the assessment, the AAC could do so only with reference to the turnover disputed in the grounds in Form I filed before him originally. He has no inherent power to annual or reduce the taxable turnover. It was contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that if the appeal was in time, instead of raising additional grounds, he could have withdrawn the appeal and filed a fresh appeal including some more turnover in the disputed turnover instead of doing so he could have filed an additional ground and requested the AAC, to read the original appeal, as withdrawing the appeal and filing a fresh consolidt. appeal would be a mere technicality, which could be dispensed with at the discretion of the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner. If that is so he could have also raised some additional grounds even after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing the appeal and requested the AAC to treat the additional grounds raised as part of the original ground itself. appeal would be a mere technicality, which could be dispensed with at the discretion of the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner. If that is so he could have also raised some additional grounds even after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing the appeal and requested the AAC to treat the additional grounds raised as part of the original ground itself. Alternatively the learned counsel contended that the additional grounds themselves may be treated as an appeal though they were no in the prescribed form and if the AAC considers that there was justifiable reason for not raising the grounds earlier he could treat them as if it were an independent appeal and dispose of both the original and the additional grounds by a common order. The learned counsel for the Revenue demurred this argument and contended that the provisions do not contemplate the filing of two appeals or the acceptance of additional grounds raising the dispute with reference to a turnover not included in the original grounds of appeal. We are of the view that the learned counsel for the Revenue is well founded in his contention. 7. Sec. 31 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 does not contemplate the filing of two appeals. In fact, we are of the view that even within the prescribed time an assessee could not prefer separate appeals in respect of each item of disputed turnover. If the provisions were to be construed as conferring a right to prefer more than one appeal, it will lead to certain anomalous results. One of the appeals may be disposed of separately in which case the order of the original Authority would merge with the order of the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority will not be entitled to deal with the other appeal filed by the assessee. Similarly if an assessee could raise additional grounds relating to a different turnover at any time he must be able to raise it or file an independent appeal even after the disposal of the appeal, which could not have been contemplated under s. 31, cl. (3) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959. Similarly if an assessee could raise additional grounds relating to a different turnover at any time he must be able to raise it or file an independent appeal even after the disposal of the appeal, which could not have been contemplated under s. 31, cl. (3) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959. Thus when in assessee goes up in appeal though he exposes the assessment order in its entirety to the scrutiny and enhancement by the AAC, so far as the assessee is concerned, the AAC could not give any relief apart from the one which he had claimed in column (6) of Form I set out above. A similar view was taken by this Court in State of Madras vs. Voltas Ltd. With reference to a revision petition filed under s. 38 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959. When the reference to a turnover which was not filed by them under s. 38, of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 in this Court in rejecting the petition to admit additional grounds, this Court observed as follows :- "There is a clear indication in the Act and the rules set out above that a memorandum of revision; petition by the aggrieved party, whether it be the State or the assessee, is not a general challenge or the assessee, but is only a limited attach in regard to the matters set out in columns 5 and 6 in Form VI. The scope of the revision petition is necessarily restricted to the question raised in the memorandum. Where the order of the taxable turnovers, each independent of the other or others, it is open to the aggrieved party, the State or the assessee, to question one or more of the points decided adversely by filing a revision filed and that embraces only some of the points decided against the petitioner, it would not be unjust or improper to infer abandoned his rights to challenge other portions of the impugned order which are against the party. In our opinion, there cannot be a challenge of a particular turnover not included in the original memorandum of revision petition under the guise of permission to raise additional grounds. The conception of urging additional or supplemental grounds is possible only with reference to matters already forming the subject-matter of revision. In our opinion, there cannot be a challenge of a particular turnover not included in the original memorandum of revision petition under the guise of permission to raise additional grounds. The conception of urging additional or supplemental grounds is possible only with reference to matters already forming the subject-matter of revision. This is nothing but common sense and we are unable to say that there is any warrant in the provisions of the ST Act or any other law to deflect this plain and common place view that additional grounds are just further props to maintain the points raised and not an enlargement of the scope of the revision petition. It is impossible to view a memorandum of revision petition as a mere structural frame work, elastic and expansive, capable of allowing the petitioner to raise questions of law relating to aspects not comprised in the original petition and conveniently discovered before the revision petition is actually disposed of. We can understand that a particular turnover of the assessee manifests several questions of law. For example, as assessee might contend that purchase of cotton was exempt from tax as it was in the course of import and he might also contend that even if it was local purchase, he was not the first purchaser in the State liable to tax. In such a case if in the original memorandum of revision petition he was raised only one question, namely, that it was an import sale within the constitutional ban of Art. 286 of the Constitution, it may perhaps be legitimate to seek permission to raise a further question of law in regard to the same matter, namely, that he is not the first purchaser. Whatever that be we are unable to hold that in a case where there are different turnovers totally unconnected with one another, it would be possible for an assessee or the State to challenge a part in the first instance and then challenge other parts without filing an independent revision petition, by merely seeking permission of the Court under a miscellaneous petition." * The learned counsel for the assessees tries to distinguish this decision on the ground that the powers of revision petition of this Court Under s. 38(4) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 is narrower and restricted than the appellate power of the AAC under s. 31 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959. Under s. 38(4) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 this Court could either reverse, affirm or amend the order against which the petition was preferred. To the extent that it did not give the power to enhance the assessment there is a restriction, that was because there is no right of appeal to the Department to the AAC but a right of revision is given to the Department under s. 38 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959. Therefore, if the Department is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal they would have to prefer a revision petition and raise a dispute in that revision. The right to reverse, affirm or amend the order under s. 38 would in our view include a power to confirm, reduce or annul assessment, according to the subject-matter of revision. We are therefore, of the view that the ratio of the decision is applicable even for consideration of the powers of the AAC under s. 31 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959. 8. The learned Counsel for the Revenue relied on the decisions in Trippanna Rayappa vs. Govt. of Andhra in State of Orissa vs. Baby Lal Chappolia and in T.V.S. Iyengar and Sons (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras and some of the decisions rendered under the provisions of the IT Act. In all these cases it was held that even in respect of a turnover which was not disputed by the assessee before the Assessing Authority he could file and appeal before the AAC. We are in entire agreement with every one of these decision. In all these cases it was held that even in respect of a turnover which was not disputed by the assessee before the Assessing Authority he could file and appeal before the AAC. We are in entire agreement with every one of these decision. Merely on the grounds that the assessee voluntarily reported the turnover as taxable or did not dispute at the time when the assessment order was made, he could not be prevented from filing an appeal if he considers that either his return as taxable turnover was a mistake or that the Assessing Authority had made a mistake in assessing the turnover though he did not object. The assesses are taxed and liable to be taxed on the sales only by virtue of the provisions of and under of the Act and not by reason of or under the return. Therefore, even if an assessee had not disputed before the Assessing Authority he could raise that dispute for the first time in the appeal before the AAC. But that does not mean that when he had failed to raise that dispute originally in the grounds of appeal, he could raise the same at any time before the appeal was disposed of by the AAC. We may also mention that Clause (5) of s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 permits the AAC to allow the appellant to go into any ground of appeal, if he is satisfied that the omission of that ground from the form of appeal was not wilful or unreasonable. 9. The learned counsel for the assess then strongly relied on certain observations of this Court in Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. Government of Madras and in State of Madras vs. Spencer and Co. Ltd. to which one of us was a party. In Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. Government of Madras the facts were these. The assessee preferred an appeal challenging the assessment in so far as it related to a turnover of Rs. 2, 38, 472 which it claimed to be sales in the course of import and hence not taxable under the Central ST Act. Relaying on the decision in Khosla & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT of Commercial Taxes decided on 18th January, 1966 by S.C. the assessee wanted to dispute a turnover of Rs. 30, 00, 000. 2, 38, 472 which it claimed to be sales in the course of import and hence not taxable under the Central ST Act. Relaying on the decision in Khosla & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT of Commercial Taxes decided on 18th January, 1966 by S.C. the assessee wanted to dispute a turnover of Rs. 30, 00, 000. When the petitioner approached the AAC he was informed that final orders had been passed in the appeal. Therefore the assessee was not able to file additional grounds of appeal before the AAC. The appeal was allowed on 24th November, 1966, in its entirety upholding the claim of the assessee for exemption on the turnover of Rs. 2, 38, 472/-. Thereafter, the assessee purported to file an appeal before the Tribunal questioning the assessment in respect of the turnover of Rs. 30, 00, 000/- which is not the subject-matter before the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal entertained the appeal, but when it came up for the final dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal was not maintainable. It was held that s. 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 enables an assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal only against the order passed by the AAC under s. 31(3) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 and since the AAC had allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in its entirety he could not have any objection to the order passed by the AAC as such. It was further held that if a turnover was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Appellate Authority it could not be the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal as that would amount to an appeal against the original order of assessment and not against the appellate order of assessment. While holding so this Court made the following two observations :(1) "The Tribunal pertinently pointed out that, even though the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khosla & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT of Commercial Taxes decided on 18th January, 1966 by S.C. was rendered in January, 1966, the assessee did not take any steps to file additional grounds of appeal before the appellate authority and call up it to decide whether the said sum of Rs. 30, 00, 000 and odd represented sales in the course of import. CIT of Commercial Taxes decided on 18th January, 1966 by S.C. was rendered in January, 1966, the assessee did not take any steps to file additional grounds of appeal before the appellate authority and call up it to decide whether the said sum of Rs. 30, 00, 000 and odd represented sales in the course of import. (2) If really the assessee was aggrieved against the assessment in respect of that turnover it should have included that turnover also in his appeal before the appellate authority, or should have taken the permission of the AAC to expand the appeal by including the disposed turnover of Rs. 30, 00, 000/- and odd. But no such step was taken." * These observation were relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee as if this Court had expressed a view that the AAC had the jurisdiction to include the turnover which was not originally disputed in the memorandum of grounds and enlarged the appeal itself. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. Those observations were made as a factual position and not as a legal position arising under the provisions of s. 31 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959. The observations relied on by the learned counsel in State of Madras vs. Spencer & Co. Ltd. Was also made in similar circumstances. There also the assessee who did not dispute the turnover wanted to dispute turnover before the AAC wanted to dispute the same before the Tribunal for the first time. This Court observed that neither the memorandum of appeal before the AAC included the turnover relating to food and drinks for any amendment of the grounds either by addition and that therefore the turnover relating to food and drinks was not properly before the AAC. This observation also was a reference to the factual position and not a considered view on the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority to raise additional grounds under s. 31 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959. 10. We are, therefore, of the view that there was no jurisdication for the AAC to permit the raising of additional ground in respect of the turnover which was not disputed in the original appeal filed in Form I and that, therefore, the Tribunal erred in directing the AAC to decide the assessability of the additional turnover on merits. 11. 10. We are, therefore, of the view that there was no jurisdication for the AAC to permit the raising of additional ground in respect of the turnover which was not disputed in the original appeal filed in Form I and that, therefore, the Tribunal erred in directing the AAC to decide the assessability of the additional turnover on merits. 11. This revision petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal on this point is, therefore, set aside. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250/-.