JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision petition is directed against the order dated July 5, 1978 of the Karnataka Appellate tribunal, Bangalore, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner in STA. No 659 of 1977. ( 2 ) THE petitioner firm is carrying on the business as jewellers at Bi japur. For the assessment year 1974-75, the petitioner declared his taxable sales and purchases turnovers. The assessing authority accepting this de clared turnovers levied the tax at percent on Rs. 11,404-75. He also levied surcharge of Rs. 910-97 under S. 6b (as it then stood) of the K. S. T. Act 1957. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the levy of surcharge, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum, under S. 20 of the K. S. T. Act. The deputy Commissioner, while considering the appeal, found that the levy of tax at 1 per cent on purchase of gold and silver articles was not in order. He issued a notice to the petitioner proposing to enhance the rate of tax at 3 per cent from 1 per cent under S. 5 (1) of the Act. After hearing the petitioner, he affirmed the rate of tax proposed and consequently cancelled the levy of additional tax imposed under S. 6b of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the appellate Tribunal. The main contention urged in the appeal related to the lack of jurisdiction for the Deputy Commissioner to enhance the assessment by adopting the high-rate of tax while disposing of the appeal against the levy under S. 6b. The tribunal did not accept the contention and dismiss the appeal. Hence, this revision petition. ( 4 ) THE sole question that arises for consideration is whether the Deputy commissioner was competent to enhance the levy while disposing of the appeal preferred against the impost under S. 6b. S. 20 (5) of the Act provides:"20. (5) In disposing of an appeal, the appellate authority may, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard (a) in the case of an order of assessment or penalty. S. 20 (5) of the Act provides:"20. (5) In disposing of an appeal, the appellate authority may, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard (a) in the case of an order of assessment or penalty. (i) confirm, reduce, enhance or annual the assessment or penalty or both; (ii) set-aside the assessment and direct the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment after such further enquiry, as may be directed; or (iii) pass such other orders as it may think fit; and (b) in the case of any other order confirm, cancel or very such order. "it will be seen from the above provisions that the section confers power on the appellate authority to enhance the assessment or penalty. It may be by enhancing the turnover or the rate of tax. But the authority must give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before he does so. Secondly, the appeal should relate to that levy or the assessment. The appellate authority cannot enhance the assessment which is not the subject matter of the appeal. This principle is beyond doubt and it goes to the very basis of the appellate power. If, therefore, the impugned levy under S. 6b which was subject matter of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, was quite different from the levy under S. 5 (1) read with Sec. 6, then it must be stated that the Deputy Commissioner had no power to enhance the assessment made or the rate of tax adopted by the assessing authority. In our opinion, the levy under S. 6b, though it was additional or in the nature of surcharge, is quite distinct and different from the levy under S. 5 (1 ). This would be clear from the scheme of the Act. In M/s Sungar bros. , v. State of Karnataka STRP no. 100|81 disposed of on 8. 4. 1982, a bench of this Court after analysing the provisions of the Act observed:"though the tax under S. 6b is an impost of a similar nature, it is levy distinct from the impost under s. 5 (1) or under S 6 This is the clear out-come of the scheme of s. 6b and the effect of S. 6b (2) of the 'act'. S. 6b (2) by providing for the application of the provisions of the 'act' to the tax under S. 6b as they apply to the sales or purchases tax under the Act, recognises the distinction between the additional tax on the one hand and the other imposts under the 'act' on the other. " ( 5 ) IT must now be stated that since the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was only in relation to levy under S. 6b. he could not have enhanced the rate of tax payable on the taxable turnover. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy commissioner as affirmed by the Tribunal so far it relates to the levy of enhanced rate of tax is set aside. The order of the Deputy Commissioner in other respect is kept undisturbed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/- --- *** --- .