VENKATACHALIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS rna ter has appeared in the list of admission cases tor the day. The petition is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel on both sides the matter is taken up for final hering and disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) THIS revision Petition under S. 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1977 (the Act for shot) is directed against the order dated 8/8/80 of the Karnataka appellate Tribunal in STA. 139/80 of it file dismissing petitioner's appeal and affirming the order dated 29/11/79 of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial taxes (Appeals), which in turn dismissed the assessee's appeal and affirmed the order of assessment dt-24/7/78 made by the Assistant Tax Officer II sc, Hubli for the assessment period 14/11/74 to 3/11/75. ( 3 ) BOTH the Assistant Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the two successive appellate authorities under the Act have declined to go into the merits of the appeal having persuaded themselves to the view that under sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act assessee's first appeal not having been accompanied by satisfactorv proof of the payment of tax not disputed in appeal, could not be entertained. ( 4 ) THE material and relevant facts are these: the petitioner is a dealer in automobile spare parts and carries on a business in automobile styled "mahamai automobiles" at Hosur. Hubli For the assessment period concerned he returned in Form IV. a total turnover of Rs. 7,166. 14p. of which a turnover in a sum of Rs 422-26p was claimed to be exempt leaving the balance of rs. 2,941-88, which was described in the said return as the net taxable turnover. The Assistant Commercial Tax officer, for reasons which are not relevant for purposes of this petition, did not accent the return, but determined bv the otder dated 24/7/78 the taxable turnover at Rs. 37,799-81 and levied a tax of Rs. 4914 thereon. Petitioner's memorandum of appeal dated 20/8/78 under section 20 of the Act preferred against this order, did not accompany satisfactory proof of payment of Rs. 377. 59, which would be the tax if the undisputed turnover of Rs. 2. 914-88 admitted by the assessee was taxable under the Act. It is not disputed that out of this sum of Rs. 377-59, petitioner had paid only a sum of Rs. 377. 59, which would be the tax if the undisputed turnover of Rs. 2. 914-88 admitted by the assessee was taxable under the Act. It is not disputed that out of this sum of Rs. 377-59, petitioner had paid only a sum of Rs. 200 before the filing of the appeal. On 23/11/78 and 24/11/78 petitioner paid sums of Rs. 177 and Re 1 respectively towards what was understood as tax not disputed in appeal. The appellate authority declined to entertain the appeal, as, according to it the appeal was unaccompanied by proof of payment of the tax not disputed in appeal. The appeal was accordingly rejected in liimine. In second appeal, the Karnataka Appellate tribunal has affirmed this order ( 5 ) THOUGH certain questions of law said to arise from the older of the Tribunal have been formulated in this petition, we think these formulations are inapposite and do not reflect the real contention, which Sri. B. V. Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought to put across The first contention urged by Sri. Katageri before us is that no concept of a tax not disputed in appeal can at all, arise in the undisputed facts of this case, in as much as the total turnover returned by the petitioner was admittedly Rs 7,166-14 and that under section 5 (5) of the Act a dealer whose tctal turnover in any year is less than Rs 25,000 shall not be liable to pay tax for that year. Secondly, he says that at all events domonstrably the whole of the tax levied was in fact disputed in appeal. The contends that the assistant Commercial Tax Officer levied a tax of Rs. 4,914 and that the entirety of that quantum of Rs. 4,914 has been shown in column-6 of Form XV, the prescribed form of appeal as the disputed tax. 3ri. Katageri accordingly, contends that both the first and the second appellate authorities proceeded on an erroneous view of both the facts of the case and the law on the matter. Sri. Katageri sought our leave to raise the proper quesetion that according to him, arises in the case ( 6 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel on both side? 3ri. Katageri accordingly, contends that both the first and the second appellate authorities proceeded on an erroneous view of both the facts of the case and the law on the matter. Sri. Katageri sought our leave to raise the proper quesetion that according to him, arises in the case ( 6 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel on both side? we permitted the petitioner to reformulate the question of law which is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, any concept of tax not disputed in the appeal at all arise so as to attract the bar for the entertainability of the appeal under section 20 (3) of the Act. ( 7 ) SMT. Vanaja, learned High Court gcvernment Pleader, did not dispute before us that having regard to the nature of petitioner's trade the exemption envisaged under section 5 (5) up-to a turnover of Rs. 25,000 is attracted to the case. She however sought to contend that this question in the form in which it is now being canvassed had not been raised before the authorities at all and that accordinglv it cannot be said that the successive appellate authorities either failed to decide the question OT decided the question erroneously, as according to her the question in that form had not been urged before the authorities at all. We are afraid, the learned Government pleader is attempting to make a fortress out of a mere technicality. Ona plain reading of the memorandum of first appeal it is clear that the entne tax determined under the assessment order had in fact been disputed and it was quite erroneous to say that there was any undisputed portion of the tax. On the question whether any admitted liability to tax arose before the assessing authority pursuant to the return filed by the petitioner, it appearrs to us that the concept of such a liability must be comprehended in the background,of all the relevant provisions of the Act. When the Act by section 5 (5) expressly provides that no liability to ta,x shall arise in respert of a total turnover in any year if it is less than Rs. 25,000, it is hardly conceivable that a return of a total turnover of Rs. 7,166-14-respecting which section 5 (5) undisputedly applied-can be said to generate any admitted liability to tax in law. 25,000, it is hardly conceivable that a return of a total turnover of Rs. 7,166-14-respecting which section 5 (5) undisputedly applied-can be said to generate any admitted liability to tax in law. The successive appellate authorities, if we may say so figuratively counted the trees and missed the wood. ( 8 ) WE therefore allow this revision petition set aside the orders in the first and second appeals and remit petitioner's appeal to the first appellate authority with the direction to consider and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law, without reference to the bar under section 20 (3) of the Act. Ordered accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .