JUDGMENT M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. - This sales tax appeal is directed against the order dated December 19, 1986, made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore, in the exercise of his suo motu power of revision under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to us "the Act"). 2. The facts leading to the appeal, may be briefly stated and they are as follows : The appellant is a registered partnership firm and a dealer in electrical goods registered as such under the Act. For the assessment year April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983, he filed return showing total turnover in the sum of Rs. 8,66,113.01 and taxable turnover at Rs. 4,16,319.12. He disclosed the tax collected by him at Rs. 38,024.22. The assessing authority, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Hubli, on verification of the books of accounts by the assessee found certain discrepancies which he listed (five in number) as at annexure C - the Commercial Tax Officer's order annexed to the memorandum of appeal. They were : (1) Out of the purchases of Rs. 8,41,243.95 actually made, the entries to the tune of Rs. 22,897.29 were left out. (2) Purchases of P.V.C. pipes made from M/s. Goa Plastic Pipes Ltd., Goa, to the tune of Rs. 4,500 were misclassified as hardware. (3) Purchases of electrical goods worth of Rs. 3,167.55 made on March 24, 1982, from M/s. M. P. Enterprises, Bangalore, shown in the previous year's list are again included and shown in this year's purchase list. (4) The registration certificates of M/s. Anavasu Cable Co., Hubli, and of M/s. Kalpana Lamp Ltd., Bangalore, were not furnished in the purchase list made on form No. 32. (5) Purchases to the tune of Rs. 17,186.75 were made from M/s. Premier Agro Electricals, Hubli, whose registration certificate was cancelled on February 10, 1977. In that circumstances, the assessing authority issued proposition notice in form No. 31-A. The assessing authority determined the appellant's taxable turnover on "best judgment" basis at Rs. 9,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,000, respectively, on the ground that the books of accounts could not be relied upon on account of the discrepancies noticed. To such a proposition notice which had disclosed the discrepancies, the appellant sent a reply dated October 22, 1984, which in our opinion fell short of a proper response to such a proposition notice. 9,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,000, respectively, on the ground that the books of accounts could not be relied upon on account of the discrepancies noticed. To such a proposition notice which had disclosed the discrepancies, the appellant sent a reply dated October 22, 1984, which in our opinion fell short of a proper response to such a proposition notice. In any event it contained sufficient material which the assessing authority took notice of and proceeded to assess on the basis of the return filed despite revised return in form No. 4 having been filed by the assessee after the proposition notice. 3. In the assessment order, it is seen that most of the discrepancies which he had noticed had been taken notice by him and the taxable turnover determined not as Rs. 9,00,000 but at Rs. 4,53,903.36 including the so-called omissions pointed out by him earlier. Similarly, the classification of P.V.C. pipes, etc., were taken notice of. On that basis, he treated it as taxable turnover and determined the tax payable at Rs. 52,504.36 after giving deduction to the tax already paid, the balance of Rs. 12,089.25 was ordered to be issued. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Hubli, in Appeal No. AP/KST/401/84-85. After hearing the appellant-dealer in substance, the appellate authority found fault with the assessing authority for not acting upon the revised return and the explanations offered which came to be accepted by the appellate authority as is apparent from the appellate order. In that view of the matter, he allowed the appeal and accepted the revised return filed and set aside the "best judgment" assessment made by the assessing authority. 4. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka found fault with the appellate order and by a notice dated July 8, 1986, proposed to suo motu revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Hubli, holding that the trading accounts in the books of accounts were not free from mistakes and that a sum of Rs. 22,897.29 had not been included in the turnover; that he had failed to furnish the registration numbers of some of the dealers from whom the appellant had purchased and that he had also purchased goods from a dealer whose registration had been cancelled. 22,897.29 had not been included in the turnover; that he had failed to furnish the registration numbers of some of the dealers from whom the appellant had purchased and that he had also purchased goods from a dealer whose registration had been cancelled. He, therefore, called upon the appellant-dealer to show cause why the appellate order should not be set aside and the assessment order dated October 26, 1984, restored. To that show cause notice, appellant-dealer furnished a detailed explanation dated July 24, 1986, in which each and every point raised by the Commissioner in his notice was explained. He pointed out that the assessing authority had added turnover which had been omitted, and therefore, there was no discrepancy in the trading account. We find that to be true having regard to the assessment concluded where the sum of Rs. 22,897.29 and a sum of Rs. 17,675 were added under the head "omissions" which had been included by the assessee in his revised return filed after the proposition notice in form No. 31-A. Similarly, the appellant pointed out that the firm, whose registration certificate was cancelled was in fact duly registered and as per the specimen bill issued to the appellant by that firm which came to be accepted by the assessing authority. In that view of the matter, Rs. 3,167 paid towards purchase of electrical goods was shown as purchases made in the year of assessment in question while it was in fact made in the previous year and had been so included in that order. That was apparently a mistake made by the clerks while preparing the returns, and therefore, in the revised return it was excluded from the turnover. Despite these explanations which were cogent and relevant to the points raised in the show cause notice, the Commissioner without discussing the replies, found the explanations bare and without substance. In fact from the language employed, it appears that he considered the reply given by the appellant to the proposition notice by the assessing authority as the explanation offered to his notice. The passage in the order impugned in this appeal reads as follows : "In the written statement of objections, it has been contended by the respondent that the omissions pointed out by the Commercial Tax Officer, in the pre-assessment notice are only technical in nature committed by the clerk while preparing form No. 32 list. The passage in the order impugned in this appeal reads as follows : "In the written statement of objections, it has been contended by the respondent that the omissions pointed out by the Commercial Tax Officer, in the pre-assessment notice are only technical in nature committed by the clerk while preparing form No. 32 list. He has contended that the omissions are not intentional and has requested to drop the proceedings." That was clearly an observation made without reference to the detailed explanation offered, to which, we have referred. 5. Therefore, on facts, we find that there were full details of purchase furnished to the Revenue by the appellant which had been reflected in the revised return and as such did not confer jurisdiction on the Commissioner under section 22-A of the Act. 6. Secondly, the Deputy Commissioner's order was not erroneous in view of the revised return. 7. In that circumstance, we have no option but to set aside the order of the Commissioner as one without jurisdiction and restore the order of the appellate authority. 8. In the circumstances of the case, the appellant-dealer is entitled to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 200. Appeal allowed.