Judgment :- 1. This revision petition has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Ernakulam against the decision of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode in Tribunal Appeal No. 833/70. 2. One Sri P. S. Vaidyanatha Iyer was conducting a refreshment stall at Tirur railway station. For the year 1966-67 he was assessed under S.17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963 hereinafter called the Act on a taxable turnover of Rs. 26,138.00 determined by the assessing authority to the best of its judgment. In making the said assessment the assessing authority had denied to the assessee the benefit of payment of tax at the compounded rates provided for by S.7 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had failed to put in the necessary application under sub-section (2) of that section read with R.30 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules despite his having been afforded an opportunity to do so. The assessment was accordingly completed by levying tax at the rates specified under sub-section (1) of S.5 of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Calicut. In that appeal he contended not merely that the quantification of the taxable turnover had been effected arbitrarily and unjustly but also that he ought to have been granted by the assessing authority the benefit of payment of tax at compounded rates under S.7 of the Act. inasmuch as he had made out sufficient cause for his failure to file the application seeking the benefit within the prescribed period under R.30. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 12-6-70 revised the taxable turnover of the appellant (assessee) by upholding some of the contentions put forward by the assessee and also found that the assessee had made out sufficient reason for not submitting the application in Form No. 21 seeking the benefit of composition of tax under S.7 within the prescribed period. While modifying the assessment in the manner indicated in his order the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave a direction to the assessing authority that if the assessee submitted an application in Form No. 21 within 10 days of the receipt of the appellate order in the office of the assessing authority, the assessee should be given the benefit of payment of tax at compounded rate under S.7 of the Act. The Department took up the matter in second appeal before the Tribunal objecting to the modification of the assessment effected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer and contending also that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in directing the assessing authority to extend the benefit of S 7 of the Act to the assessee, in case the assessee filed an application in Form No. 21 within 7 days of the receipt of the appellate order. The Tribunal found that the modification effected in the assessment by the first Appellate Authority was fully justified It also held that the powers conferred on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under S.34 of the Act were wide enough to include the power to examine the legality and propriety of the action of the Sales Tax Officer in denying to the assessee the benefit of S.7 to issue appropriate consequential directions to the Sales lax Officer. The second appeal filed by the Revenue was accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal. 4. In this revision petition it is contended by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal was wrong in the view that it took regarding the scope of the appellate power conferred under S.34 of the Act on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We see no merit in this contention. Under S.34 of the Act the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in disposing of an appeal filed against the order of assessment, may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, set aside the assessment and direct the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment after such further enquiry as may be directed or pass such other orders as he may think fit. Once an appeal against the assessment order is before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he can examine the correctness not only of the ultimate computation of tax arrived at by the Sales Tax Officer, he can also revise every process which led to the ultimate computation of tax and completion of the assessment. In other words, what he can revise is not merely the ultimate conclusion recorded by the assessing authority as to the quantum of the liability of the assessee to tax, but he is entitled to examine the correctness of every ground stated or decision reached by the Sales Tax Officer in the course of making such assessment. In other words, what he can revise is not merely the ultimate conclusion recorded by the assessing authority as to the quantum of the liability of the assessee to tax, but he is entitled to examine the correctness of every ground stated or decision reached by the Sales Tax Officer in the course of making such assessment. (See Narrondas Manordass v. Commr. of Income Tax, 31 ITR. 909 and Commr. of Income Tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225). 5. The determination of the entitlement of an assessee to the benefit of S.7 is a necessary concomitant step in quantification of his tax liability and hence it forms an integral part of the process of assessment A decision taken by the Sales Tax Officer in regard to the said matter and incorporated in the assessment order is therefore open to scrutiny, review and correction by the appellate authority in an appeal filed against the assessment under S.34 of the Act. 6. It was strongly contended before us by the learned Government Pleader that under the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.7 a discretion to condone the delay in the case of a late application filed thereunder has been conferred solely and exclusively on the assessing authority. No doubt, this is perfectly correct. But once a discretion has been exercised in a particular manner by the assessing authority and the result is reflected in the order of assessment passed by it, it will be fully within the competence of the appellate authority to examine and determine whether the decision taken by the assessing authority in the exercise of its discretion was just, correct and fair. When the assessee questions the order of assessment by filing an appeal under S.34 of the Act in a case where the benefit of S.7 was denied to him by the assessing authority, he can object to the assessment inter alia on the ground that the tax ought to have been levied only at the concessional rates provided for in S.7 and that the denial of such benefit to him as also of the facility of instalment payment provided for by that section was not legal or proper. The appellate authority will then have to examine the legality and propriety of the decision taken by the assessing authority on the question of entitlement of assessee to the benefit of S.7 and in case the appellate authority finds that the said decision was not just or correct, the appellate authority is empowered by S.34 to pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. Such being the legal position, we do not find it possible to uphold the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had acted without jurisdiction in recording a finding that the assessee had made out sufficient cause for the delay in the filing of the application in Form No. 21 and in directing the assessing authority to extend the benefit of S 7 of the Act to the assessee in the event of his filing the requisite application within the period of one week. 7. The view taken by the Tribunal in regard to this matter is therefore perfectly correct and sound. 8. Though an argument was advanced by the learned Government Pleader that the Appellate Authority while issuing the impugned direction to the Sales Tax Officer to extend to the assessee the benefit of S.7 has not considered the crucial question as to whether the assessee had made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the filing of such application, we do not find any substance in this contention, because a clear finding has been recorded by the Appellate Authority which has also been concurred in by the Tribunal that a valid and adequate explanation had been furnished by the assessee for the failure on his part to file the application within the prescribed time. 9. It follows from the foregoing discussion that no interference is called for with the decision of the Tribunal. This tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs.