( 1 ) WHETHER the suo motu revisional power conferred by Section 22-A (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the Act') has been exercised or initiated within a period of four years from the date of the order or not as required by Section 22-A (2) of the Act and therefore barred by time or not is the short interesting question that arises for determination in these cases. In order to appreciate the same, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts of the case in Writ petition No. 16098 of 1981 in some detail as illustrative only and the other cases in general. ( 2 ) WRIT PETITION NO. 16098 of 1981: For the assessment years 1970-71 the purchase turnovers of paddy effected by the petitioner amounting to rs. 12,69,286-25 and Rs. 29,93,521-26 was brought to tax under the Act by the commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi ('cto') in his assessment ciders made on 29-9-1973 and 30-4-1974. Against the said orders of the CTO, the petitioner filed appeals under Section 20 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bellary ('dc') inter-alia contending that the paddy converted into rice had not undergone manufacturing process and his purchase turn overs were not exigible to tax under Section 6 of the Act. On 14-3-1975 the DC following a Division Bench ruling of this Court in The State v s. Raghurama Setty and others (35 STC 360) which had been challenged by the state in an appeal before the Supreme court and pending,'allowed the same. On 24-3-1981 the Supreme Court allowed the said appeal filed by the State and has reversed the decision of this Court, since reported as State of Karnataka v B. Raghurama Setty (47 STC 369 ). "on 18-3-1977, the DC forwarded the records of his office in the appeal filed by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, bangalore, ('commissioner') 'forneedful action', which was received by him on 23-3-1977. On receipt of the records in the above appeal and the connected cases, the office prepared a note thereon as hereunder and submitted the same to the Commissioner : file NO. RVN 118/77-78 sub : Revision of cases itf which conversion of paddy into rice whether amounts to manufacture. "the DCCT, Bellary has sent the following cases and has suggested to revise the orders. RVN 118/77-78 sub : Revision of cases itf which conversion of paddy into rice whether amounts to manufacture. "the DCCT, Bellary has sent the following cases and has suggested to revise the orders. The point in these caseg are conversion of paddy iato rice whether amounts to manufacture or not. The order date and the date within which section 22-A can be exercised are indicated below :