M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, carrying on business at Gadag. He is aggrieved by the notice issued under ss. 12-A and 12-A (1-A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with S. 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. That notice is dated 16th September, 1981 (produced as annexure-C to the writ petition ). ( 2 ) THE notice (Annexure-C) is to the effect that the assessment order dated 22-1-1977 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Assessments) Dharwad, is liable to be re-opened, inasmuch as transactions relating to 1300 bales of cotton despatched outside the State of Karnataka between 21-11-1975 and 29-6-1976 had escaped assessment. The petitioner was also issued call notices on various dates to produce books of accounts relating to the aforementioned transactions for verification, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent acct (Appeals), has no jurisdiction to issue the notice in question, because the conferment of jurisdiction by the order of the Commissioner dated 5th August, 1980 on the respondent was confined to pending and future assessments and not to assessments concluded before the order of the Commissioner. For this proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of sales Tax, Nagpur (1 ). In that case, the supreme Court has held in deciding what is escaped assessment that where no assessment is completed, then such assessment is considered to be pending. I am unable to see how the decision in that case helps the case of the petitioner in the instant case. ( 3 ) THE order of the Commissioner of commercial Taxes dated 5th August 1980 conferred additional jurisdiction on the respondent, ACCT (Appeals) dharwar, not only in respect of all classes of cases but also in respect of classes of persons i. e. , persons who reside in dharwar District (excluding Hublidharwad-Corporation area) and Uttara kannada District, having a turnover in excess of Rs. 50,000. By transferring the cases of classes of persons, what was transferred was not merely a specified batch of cases pending or otherwise, but the whole lot of cases relating to those persons who were dealers within the jurisdiction of the aforementioned two districts excluding the omitted area. 50,000. By transferring the cases of classes of persons, what was transferred was not merely a specified batch of cases pending or otherwise, but the whole lot of cases relating to those persons who were dealers within the jurisdiction of the aforementioned two districts excluding the omitted area. Hence, the respondent, ACCT (Appeals), Dbarwar, assumed jurisdiction in respect of all cases relating to persons having more than Rs. 50,000 turnover in those two Districts, barring the area axcluded. In other words, he has been conferred with jurisdiction to be exercised by those who had earlier been so confer, red in respect of the same class of persons. In such an event, the concluded assessment is also a case which stood transferred to the respondent. Therefore it was well within his power to re-open the assessment under S. 12-A in respect of certain cases as well as cases which had escaped turnover. ( 4 ) IT has not been the case of the petitioner that the order of the commissioner is in any way defective or is passed without the authority of law. Hence, this petition is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, this petition is rejected without issuing rule. The learned High Court Government Pleader, Smt. Vanaja who has entered appearance for the respondent is permitted to file her memo of appearance within a week from today. There will be no order as to costs in this petition. --- *** --- .