JUDGMENT M. RAMA JOIS. J. - This appeal is presented under section 24 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("the Act" for short) against the order of suo motu revision made ny the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in exercise of his powers under section 22A of the Act revising the order of the first appellate authority and levying tax at the rate of 5 per cent on the sale of gold and sliver articles for the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are these : Gold and silver articles were subjected to sales to ax at the rate 4 per cent under section 5(1) of the Act during the period relevant to this case. By Notification dated 10th July, 1981 issued under section 8A of the Act, the Government accorded a concession in the rate of tax payable on sale of articles of gold and silver. The notification reads : "Finance Secretariat Notification, Bengalore, dated 10th July, 1981. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (karnataka Act 25 of 1957), the Government of Karnataka hereby reduces, with effect from 1st day of August, 1981, the tax payable under the said Act on the Sale of 'articles of gold and silver' from four per cent multi-point to two per cent multi-point and on the sale of 'bullion and spice' from 2 per cent single point to 1 per cent single point." The period of assessment relating to the present case is from 28th October, 1981 to 15th November, 1982. The aforesaid notification dated 1oth July, 1981 was in force up to 31st March, 1982 and accordingly in respect of the turnover of the petitioner relating to articles of gold and silver up to 31st March, 1982, the tax leviable was at 2 per cent. With effect from 1st April, 1982, the Act was amended by Act No. 13 of 1982 and the rate of tax on the sale of gold and silver articles was raised from 4 per cent to 5 per cent. In view of sub-section (3A) of section 8A of the Act, the notification issued on 10th July, 1981, stood automatically cancelled on account of the increase in the rate of tax. In view of sub-section (3A) of section 8A of the Act, the notification issued on 10th July, 1981, stood automatically cancelled on account of the increase in the rate of tax. Therefore, with effect from 1st April, 1982 the rate of tax payable by the petitioner on sale of gold and silver articles was 5 per cent. Again by another notification dated 13th August, 1982 a concessional rate of 2 per cent was fixed under section 8A of the Act. Therefore, there is no dispute that from 13th August, 1982 to 15th November, 1982 the rate of tax payable was 2 per cent. The assessing authority accordingly levied tax at the rate of 2 per cent up to 31st March, 1982 and at the rate of 5 per cent between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982, and at the rate of 2 per cent after 13th August, 1982. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the petitioner took the matter in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. In the appeal, the contention of the petitioner was that the notification dated 10th July, 1981 continued to be in force even during the period commencing from 1st April, 1982 to 12th August, 1982 and that the view taken by the assessing authority that the notification ceased to have effect with effect from 1st April, 1982 consequent on the change of rate of tax from 4 per cent to 5 per cent, was not correct. The Deputy Commissioner accepted to above contention of the assessee, allowed his appeal and reduced the tax on the turnover of sale of gold and silver articles from 1st April, 1982 to 12th August, 1982 to two per cent. 4. The Commissioner being of the view that the order of the appellate authority was erroneous and was prejudicial to the revenue, initiated action under section 22A of the Act. 4. The Commissioner being of the view that the order of the appellate authority was erroneous and was prejudicial to the revenue, initiated action under section 22A of the Act. He was of the view that in view of section 8A(3A) of the Act, the notification dated 10th July, 1981, issued under section 8A of the Act reducing the tax for sale of gold and silver articles from 4 per cent to 2 per cent, became ineffective with effect from 1st April, 1982 consequent upon the increase in the rate of tax brought about by an amendment to the Act by Act No. 13 of 1982, and therefore the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was not right in granting the relief as had been done by him by reducing the rate of tax from 5 per cent to 2 per cent for the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellant contended that the notification issued under section 8A of the Act did not became ineffective with effect from 1st April, 1982 just because there was an increase in the rate of tax and it continued to be in force until it was withdrawn by the State Government. In support of this contention, the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of K. Janardana Acharya v. State of Karnataka [1980] 46 STC 375; (1980) 2 Kar LJ 145. The Commissioner rejected the contention on the ground that the above case was decided prior to introduction of sub-section (3A) of section 8A of the Act and therefore, was of no assistance to the petitioner. The Commissioner, however, relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of S. V. Patwardhan v. State of Karnataka [1984] 57 STC 10, in which it was held that section 8A(3A) has the effect of cancelling the notification issued under section 8A(1)(a) of he Act though not the notification issued under section 8A(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner was of the view that the notification dated 10th July, 1981 was one issued under section 8A(1)(a) of the Act and therefore it stood automatically cancelled with the increase of rate with effect from 1st April, 1982. The Commissioner was of the view that the notification dated 10th July, 1981 was one issued under section 8A(1)(a) of the Act and therefore it stood automatically cancelled with the increase of rate with effect from 1st April, 1982. Accordingly, the Commissioner directed that on the turnover of sale of gold and silver articles of the petitioner during the period from 1st April, 1982 to 12th August, 1982, the rate of tax should be a at 5 per cent. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the original authority. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner, the appellant has presented this appeal. 5. The short question of law that arises for consideration is, whether the notification dated 10th July, 1981 issued by the State Government under section 8A of the Act stood automatically cancelled with effect from 1st April, 1982 ? 6. In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to refer to the provisions of section 8A of the Act. It reads : "8A. Power of State Government to notify exemptions and reductions of tax - (1) The State Government may, by notification, make an exemption, or reduction in rate, in respect of any tax payable under this Act - (a) on the sale or purchase of any specified goods or class of goods, at all points in the series of sales by successive dealers; or (b) by any specified class of persons, in regard to the whole or any part of their turnover; or (c) on the sale or purchase of any specified class of goods by any specified class of dealers in regard to the whole or part of their turnover. (2) Any exemption from tax, or reduction in the rate of tax, notified under sub-section (1) may be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification. (3) The State Government may, by notification, cancel or vary any notification issued under sub-section (1). (2) Any exemption from tax, or reduction in the rate of tax, notified under sub-section (1) may be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification. (3) The State Government may, by notification, cancel or vary any notification issued under sub-section (1). (3A) If the rate of tax payable under this Act in respect of any goods or class of goods gets modified by an amendment to this Act, notification, if any, issued in respect of such goods or class of goods under clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall, with effect from the which such amendment comes into force, be deemed to be cancelled to the extent in relates to such goods or class of goods : Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any notification which is issued clause (a) of sub-section (1) in respect of any specified goods or class of goods taxable under sub-section (1) of section 5." Sub-section (3A) of section 8A of the Act was introduced into the Act by Act No. 7 of 1981. 7. A reading of section 8A of the Act indicates that by the provision the Government is given the power under clause (a) of sub-section (1) to grant exemption or reduction in the rate of tax payable under the Act on the sale or purchase of goods liable to tax under the Act. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) empowers the Government to grant exemption or reduction in the rate of tax in respect of specified class of persons in regard to the whole or any par of the turnover. Sub-section (3) of section 8A empowers the Government to cancel or vary any notification issued under sub-section (1). Sub-section (3A) was introduced to bring about automatic cancellation of the notification issued by the State Government under clause (a) of section 8A(1) of the Act, with effect from the date from which, by an amendment to the Act, the rate of tax on any goods is changed. 8. A reading of the contents of the notification dated 10th July, 1981, extracted earlier, indicates that it is a notification granting concessional rate for the goods specified therein, namely, sale of gold and silver articles. Therefore, the notification squarely falls under clause (a). 8. A reading of the contents of the notification dated 10th July, 1981, extracted earlier, indicates that it is a notification granting concessional rate for the goods specified therein, namely, sale of gold and silver articles. Therefore, the notification squarely falls under clause (a). From this it follows that when by the amendment of the Act by No. 13 of 1982 with effect from 1st April, 1982, the rate of tax was changed from 4 per cent to 5 per cent on gold and silver articles, the notification dated 10th July, 1981 stood automatically cancelled. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of Janaradhana Acharya [1980] 46 STC 375 (kar); (1980) 2 kar LJ 145 and contended that the notification issued on 10th July, 1981, continues to be in force until it is cancelled by another notification issued under sub-section (3) of section 8A of the Act by the State Government. It is true that in the case of Janaradhana Acharya [1980] 46 STC 375; (1980) 2 kar LJ, this Court held that once exemption notification or a notification granting concessional rate is issued by the State Government under section 8A(1)(a) of the Act, the notification continues until it is cancelled by another notification issued by the Government under sub-section (3) of section 8A of the Act. But the said decision is of no assistance to the petitioner for the reason the decision interpreted section 8A of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Act No. 7 of 1981. Therefore, the Commissioner was right in holding that the decision in the case of Janaradhana Acharya [1980] 46 STC 375 (Kar); (1980) 2 Kar LJ 145, rendered prior to introduction of sub-section (3A), was of no assistance to the petitioner in. this case. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna and Co. v. State of Karnataka [1983] 54 STC 263; (1983) 1 Kar LJ 130. In the said case, the notification which came for interpretation was issued on 10th September, 1970 under section 8A(1) of the Act. By the said notification, exemption was granted in respect of tax payable under section 6 of the Act regarding purchase of articles of gold and silver by a manufacture of such articles. In the said case, the notification which came for interpretation was issued on 10th September, 1970 under section 8A(1) of the Act. By the said notification, exemption was granted in respect of tax payable under section 6 of the Act regarding purchase of articles of gold and silver by a manufacture of such articles. The question for consideration was, whether on the change of rate of tax, the said notification dated 10th September, 1970 automatically stood cancelled or it continued to be in force. In the said case, it was pointed out by the Division Bench that the said notification was issued in favour of certain class of dealers, namely, manufactures of gold and silver articles and it was even conceded by the Government that the said notification was issued under clause(b) of section 8A(1) of the Act, and therefore it was held that the said notification did not get automatically cancelled on the change brought about in the rate of tax by an amendment to the Act, as sub-section (3A) only refers to a notification under clause (a) and not clause (b). In the present case, as pointed out earlier, the notification dated 10th July, 1981, on which the petitioner relies, was issued under clause (a) and therefore it stood automatically cancelled with effect from 1st April, 1982, on which date the rate of tax was revised from 4 per cent to 5 per cent by an amendment to the Act by Act No. 13 of 1982. Therefore the decision in the case of Krishna and Co. [1983] 54 STC 263 (Kar); (1983) 1 Kar LJ 130 is also of no assistance to the petitioner. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Commissioner that the concessional rate or 2 per cent fixed by notification dated 10th July, 1981 was not available from 1st April, 1982 up to 12th August, 1982 by the force of sub-section (3A) of section 8A of the Act, was correct. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that another illegality had been committed in all the three orders, in respect of which the petitioner was entitled to relief. The learned counsel submitted that though the total turnover of the petitioner commencing from 28th October, 1981 to 15th November, 1982 was Rs. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that another illegality had been committed in all the three orders, in respect of which the petitioner was entitled to relief. The learned counsel submitted that though the total turnover of the petitioner commencing from 28th October, 1981 to 15th November, 1982 was Rs. 3,68,542.83, a tax at the rate of 5 per cent has been levied on the entire turnover, though it should have been confined to the turnover which related to the period commencing from 1st April, 1982 and ending on 12th August, 1982. The learned counsel also submitted that there was no difficulty in ascertaining the turnover figures for this period as the petitioner was filing monthly returns regularly and the returns have been accepted as correct by the authorities. The learned counsel invited our attention to the ground raised before the first appellate authority, which has been set out in paragraph 2 of the appellant authority's order. The relevant portion reads : ".......... The appellant's book figures are accepted by the assessing authority but treated the entire sales of gold and silver articles have been effected during the period from 1st April, 1982 to 12th August, 1982 disregarding the fact that the appellant has failed monthly statement of accounts for each moth for the period from 28th October, 1981 to 15th November, 1982." The appellant's book figures are accepted by the assessing authority, but it treated that the entire sales of gold and silver articles had been effected during the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982 disregarding the fact that the appellant has filed monthly statement of accounts for each month for the period between 28th October, 1981 and 15th November, 1982. In the operative portion of the order, the Deputy Commissioner having accepted the plea of the petitioner that the notification dated 10th July, 1981 became ineffective (sic) with effect from 1st April, 1982, stated thus : "I reduce the tax to 2 per cent in respect of sales of gold/silver articles amounting to Rs. 3,68,542.83." 12. The above operation portion of the order gives an impression that the entire turnover related to the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982 and for that period the assessing authority had levied tax at the rate 5 per cent and the appellate authority was reducing it to 2 per cent. 3,68,542.83." 12. The above operation portion of the order gives an impression that the entire turnover related to the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982 and for that period the assessing authority had levied tax at the rate 5 per cent and the appellate authority was reducing it to 2 per cent. But the learned counsel submitted that the appellant was not at all aggrieved by the said order as irrespective of the turnover, for any of the periods the petitioner was contending that the rate of tax should be two per cent. 13. The learned counsel submitted that even if the petitioner's contention that he was entitled to a concessional rate at 2 per cent for the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982 were to be rejected by this Court, he was entitled to an order directing the Commissioner to levy tax at the rate of 5 per cent only in respect of the turnover relating to the period commencing from 1st April, 1982 and ending on 12th August, 1982. Sri H. L. Dattu, the learned High Court Government Pleader, fairly conceded that the turnover of the appellant was not Rs. 3,68,542.83 for the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982 and it was Rs. 1,37,342 according to the monthly returns filed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the rate of tax at 5 per cent has to be levied only on the said turnover relating to the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982. 14. In the result, we make the following order : (i) The appeal is party allowed. (ii) The order of the Commissioner in so far he held the rate of tax payable on the turnover of sale of gold and silver articles during the period from 1st April, 1982 to 12th August, 1982 was 5 per cent, is upheld. (iii) The Commissioner, however, is directed to modify the order restricting the levy of 5 per cent to the actual turnover of the petitioner as disclosed from the records for the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982 and to take further steps in the light of such an order, in accordance with law. Appeal partly allowed.