Judgment :- 1. W.A. No. 445 of 1982 arises from the judgment in Swarnambhal Jewellers v. Intelligence Officer. 1982 K L.T. 763 (O.P. No. 6752 of 1980). W.A. No. 459 of 1984 arises from the judgment in O.P. No. 6560 of 1981. and that judgment is based on the judgment in the other case. Both these cases have arisen in almost identical circumstances. 2. The petitioner in each of the two proceedings is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax act. 1963 (the "Act"). By the impugned order in O.P. No. 6560 of 1981. penalty was imposed upon the assessee under S.45-A (1)(b) and (c) of the Act. By the impugned order in O.P. No. 4752 of 1980. notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty should not be imposed under S.45-A. The main contention of each of the petitioners before the learned judge was that the officer who imposed the penalty under S.45-A was not competent to do so as no power had been specifically conferred upon him under that provision. Upholding that contention. the learned judge held that. in the absence of a notification in terms of Explanation II to S.45-A(1). an officer. though an assessing authority by reason of the notification issued under S.2(iv) and 3(2). was not competent to exercise the power under S.45-A. That power could be validly exercised only by person on whom power was specifically conferred under S.45-A(1). The learned judge assumed that. for all practical purposes. the notification issued in 1963 under S.2(iv) and 3(2) was superseded by Explanation II to S.45-A(1) and held that. in the absence of a notification under the latter provision. the assessing authority who acted under the notification of 1963 had no power under S.45-A. 3. Shri. Chacko George appearing for the respondent in W. A. No. 459 of 1984 further contends that. in any view. the officer competent to act under S.45-A is only that particular officer who is empowered to assess the concerned assessee and not any other officer. though invested with powers of assessment; 4. The Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State submits that Explanation II to S.45-A(1) contains an inclusive definition to rope in for the purpose of S.45-A an additional group of officers who are not otherwise assessing authorities as defined under S.2(iv). 5. though invested with powers of assessment; 4. The Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State submits that Explanation II to S.45-A(1) contains an inclusive definition to rope in for the purpose of S.45-A an additional group of officers who are not otherwise assessing authorities as defined under S.2(iv). 5. The assessing authority for the purpose of the Act is defined under S.2(iv) as follows: "'assessing authority' means any person authorised by the Government or by any authority empowered by them to make any assessment under this Act." S. 3 refers to Sales Tax Authorities. Sub-s. (2) of that Section reads: "The Government shall appoint as many Deputy Commissioners. Appellate Assistant Commissioners. Inspecting Assistant Commissioners. Sales Tax Officers and such other officers as they think fit for the purpose of performing the functions respectively assigned to them by or under this Act. Such officers shall perform the said functions within such local limits as the Government or any authority or officer empowered by them In this behalf may assign to them." Sales-tax Officers. along with other officers. are appointed by the Government under this provision to perform such functions as are assigned to them by or under the Act. They perform such functions within such local limits as the Government may specify. In exercise of the powers conferred under S.2(iv) and 3 (2). the Government have by G.O. MS. No. 278/Rev. dated 30-3-1963 appointed and empowered. among others. the Intelligence Officers to exercise the powers of an assessing authority within specified areas. An officer so authorised in terms of that notification is an assessing authority as defined in S.2(iv) and is empowered to act in terms of S.3 (2) in respect of all matters assigned to him under the Act. It is not disputed that the concerned Intelligence Officer who issued the order impugned in each of these two proceedings had been duly authorised under S.2(iv) and 3(2) as an assessing authority and that be is entitled to make an assessment in respect of the assessee in question. The argument. however. is that. although an assessing authority for the purpose of assessment of tax. he is not an assessing authority for the purpose of imposing penalty under S.45-A. 6. Power under S.45-A can be exercised by an assessing authority or by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (see sub-s. (1)). The argument. however. is that. although an assessing authority for the purpose of assessment of tax. he is not an assessing authority for the purpose of imposing penalty under S.45-A. 6. Power under S.45-A can be exercised by an assessing authority or by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (see sub-s. (1)). Any officer authorised under S.2 (iv) and 3(2) is a competent assessing authority also for the purpose of S.45-A. In addition to such assessing authority. officers not below the rank of Sales Tax Officers may also be authorised solely for the purpose of S.45-A. This is by virtue of Explanation II which reads: "For the purposes of this sub-section. the expression 'assessing authority' includes any officer not below the rank of Sales Tax Officer specified by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette." (emphasis supplied) Explanation II which contains as inclusive definition. ropes in any officer (not below the rank of Sales Tax Officer) specified by the Government by notification. Such an officer is an assessing authority only for the purpose of S.45-A. and not for any other purposes. as he has not also been notified under S.2 (iv) and 3 (2). But he is fully competent to impose penalty in the circumstances mentioned in S.45-A. This is all that is purported to be achieved by Explanation II. 7. It is not correct to say. as found by the learned judge. that the notification of 1963. issued under S.2(iv) and 3 (2). was virtually replaced by Explanation II. The object of that Explanation. as pointed out earlier. is totally different and in addition to. and without prejudice to. the general power of assessment conferred on the assessing authority by virtue of the notification under S.2(iv) and 3 (2). It is. therefore. not correct to say that a competent assessing authority. who is empowered by virtue of the power conferred on him under S.2 (iv) and 3(2). is not competent to act under S.45-A also. In fact the officers so empowered under S.2 (iv) and 3(2) were the very persons who acted also under S.45-A and none else until Explanation II was introduced by Act 19 of 1980. 8. Shri. Chacko George however contends that. even if it is correct to assume. contrary to the finding of the learned judge. that a person. though net notified under S.45-A. is competent to exercise power under that provision. 8. Shri. Chacko George however contends that. even if it is correct to assume. contrary to the finding of the learned judge. that a person. though net notified under S.45-A. is competent to exercise power under that provision. by virtue of the notification under S.2 (iv) and 3 (2). he must nevertheless be the very officer entrusted with the files relating to the assessee for the purpose of assessment of tax. We see no justification to read the power so narrowly. Any officer belonging to the category of authorised officers in terras of S.2 (iv) and 3 (2) is competent to exercise the power under S.45-A in respect of any person described in S.45-A. Shri. Chacko George. nevertheless. concedes that. in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Intelligence Officer. C.I. Squad v. Hotel Ambassador. (1980) 45. STC. 425 (Ker.) the power under S.45-A can be exercised by the officer independently of the assessment proceedings. 9. For the reasons stated by us. we bold that the notification under S.2 (iv) and 3 (2) is sufficient conferment of power for the purpose of S.45-A as well. The notification of 1963 issued under S.2 (iv) and 3(2) of the Act operates in full force independently of Explanation II to S.43 A(1). This Explanation does not derogate from the power conferred under S.2 (iv) and 3 (2) which necessarily embraces S.45-A as well. 10. Accordingly we hold that the impugned orders were issued by the competent authority. We do not. however. express any view as regards the facts dealt with in the orders and whether those orders were warranted by those facts. Those are matters which do not concern proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The correctness of the impugned action on the basis of the relevant facts is open to challenge only before the competent authority under the Act. 11. The assessee in W.A. No. 459 of 1984 could have challenged the order under Sub-s. (3) of S.45A before the Deputy Commissioner within 30 days. He did not do so. However. the proviso to that sub-section authorises the Deputy Commissioner to condone the delay. We have no doubt that. in the circumstances of this case and particularly in view of the pendency of the present proceedings. the Deputy Commissioner would favourably consider the request for condonation of delay. He did not do so. However. the proviso to that sub-section authorises the Deputy Commissioner to condone the delay. We have no doubt that. in the circumstances of this case and particularly in view of the pendency of the present proceedings. the Deputy Commissioner would favourably consider the request for condonation of delay. provided the necessary applications in that behalf are filed by the assessee within two weeks from today. 12. The assessee in W. A. No. 445 of 1982 has yet to file his reply to the show cause notice. His complaint was and still is that he was not allowed to take notes from the records seized from his office and therefore he has not been in a position to answer the allegations effectively. This appears to be genuine complaint. We have no doubt that the assessee would be allowed to take notes from the seized documents under the supervision of the concerned officer on any day that the officer may appoint for the purpose provided the assessee would make a written application to him in that behalf within two weeks from today. On taking the notes. it will be open to him within two weeks thereafter to file his reply to the show cause notice. If such reply is so filed. we have no doubt that it will be disposed of on the merits by the concerned officer. 13. Subject to this observation as regards the assessees' remedy against the impugned orders. the judgments under appeal are set aside and the appeals are allowed. The pasties shall bear their respective costs.