JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - This batch of 56 writ appeals are preferred against the common judgment of Viswanatha Iyer, J., dated April 7, 1993 [Reported as Gangadharan v. Additional Sales Tax Officer [1993] 91 STC 80 (Ker).], rendered in O.P. No. 10342 of 1992 and connected cases. All the appellants are assessees under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. They are dealers in rubber, garbled or ungarbled pepper, arecanut, dried ginger etc. The grievances highlighted by the appellants/assessees are substantially similar. The appellants have highlighted the manner or method by which the turnover tax under section 5(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, is given effect to or implemented. The Kerala Finance Act (18 of 1987) introduced sub-section (2A) in section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Sub-section (2A) provided for the levy of turnover tax on the turnover of goods as specified therein-at the rate of half per cent on the turnover of goods coming under the First or Fifth Schedule to the Act. Tax is levied on all dealers whose turnover exceeded rupees twenty-five lakhs in a year. It is payable by all dealers. It is subjected to annual amendments and exemptions or reductions promulgated in the notification issued under section 10 of the Act. The relevant notifications dealing with exemption in respect of turnover tax payable under section 5(2A) of the Act are S.R.O. Nos. 715, 716 and 717 of 1988 which were relied on by the assessees in support of their pleas. S.R.O. Nos. 715 and 716 of 1988 dealt with turnover of rubber and S.R.O. No. 717 of 1988 dealt with the turnover relating to pepper, arecanut, ginger, etc. S.R.O. No. 715 of 1988 came into force from July 1, 1987 and was valid till February 18, 1988. S.R.O. No. 716 of 1988 came into force of February 19, 1988, and S.R.O. No. 717 of 1988 came into force with effect from July 1, 1987. 2. S.R.O. No. 715 of 1988 came into force from July 1, 1987 and was valid till February 18, 1988. S.R.O. No. 716 of 1988 came into force of February 19, 1988, and S.R.O. No. 717 of 1988 came into force with effect from July 1, 1987. 2. Briefly stated, the aforesaid three notifications promulgated under section 10 of the Act, made an exemption in respect of turnover tax payable by dealers under section 5(2A) of the Act on the turnover of goods specified therein, in respect of all points of purchase except the penultimate purchase point, viz., purchase point immediately preceding the last purchase point in the State or at the point of purchase preceding the purchase in the course of export or at the point of purchase previous to the last purchase in the State which is not exempted from turnover tax. The notification was subject to the condition that the dealer who claims exemption on such turnover tax shall produce before the assessing authority concerned a declaration in the form annexed to the notification from the dealer who had paid the turnover tax. 3. The main attack in the original petitions and still in the writ appeals is against the conditions imposed in the various exemption notifications. The main plea of the assessees was against the imposition of the condition in the respective notifications, namely, production of a declaration in the form annexed to the notification. The exemption notification as such was not challenged. The conditions imposed by the notifications alone were challenged on many grounds. They are : (i) the conditions imposed are unreasonable, impracticable and onerous; (ii) the prescription of condition violates article 14 of the Constitution; (iii) the imposition of conditions resulted in imposition of tax at more than one point; (iv) the retrospectivity given to the notifications is bad in law; and (v) the notifications in effect impose a tax on income and so are outside the purview of entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 3A. Viswanatha Iyer, J., repelled all the above pleas, by the common judgment dated April 7, 1993 [See [1993] 91 STC 80 (Ker).]. The conclusion of the learned single Judge are summarised in paragraph 24 of the common judgment. They are as follows : "(a) The notifications S.R.O. Nos. 715, 716 and 717 of 1988 are valid in entirety. 3A. Viswanatha Iyer, J., repelled all the above pleas, by the common judgment dated April 7, 1993 [See [1993] 91 STC 80 (Ker).]. The conclusion of the learned single Judge are summarised in paragraph 24 of the common judgment. They are as follows : "(a) The notifications S.R.O. Nos. 715, 716 and 717 of 1988 are valid in entirety. (b) If any dealer wants to avail of the benefit of exemption granted by these notifications, he has to produce the declaration in the form annexed to the notifications, but he may be permitted to prove the requisite fact by other satisfactory evidence produced for the purpose in lieu of the declaration. (c) The turnover tax is liable to be paid every month after the taxable turnover exceeds the prescribed minimum limit, at the rates applicable for the level of turnover reached. (d) The levy of turnover tax is constitutionally valid. (e) No demand in form No. 14D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, could be issued unless there is an admission of liability for turnover tax in the monthly returns filed. If the dealer does not admit any liability, the assessing authority has to follow the procedure prescribed for completion of an assessment and issue of demand in order to fasten the dealer with liability." It is from the aforesaid common judgment dated April 7, 1993 [See [1993] 91 STC 80 (Ker).], this batch of writ appeals are filed. 4. On behalf of the appellants, arguments were advanced by Shri C. Natarajan, Senior Counsel. The other counsel appearing in the various writ appeals supported the arguments advanced by Shri Natarajan. Before us, the peas urged before the learned single Judge were repeated and the following aspects were highlighted : (i) The condition imposed in the notifications to prove payment of tax may not subserve the purpose envisaged by section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The condition imposed in the notifications runs against the spirit fixing liability at one stage. Having granted exemption the attempt is to collect tax which is not authorised; (ii) the notifications in fact create a liability. It cannot be done; (iii) the notifications should be liberally construed. The condition imposed in the notifications runs against the spirit fixing liability at one stage. Having granted exemption the attempt is to collect tax which is not authorised; (ii) the notifications in fact create a liability. It cannot be done; (iii) the notifications should be liberally construed. They are impracticable or impossible of compliance; (iv) the delegated legislation, i.e., notifications should be controlled by appropriate judicial control; and (v) demands were raised in giving effect to the notifications for non-production of declarations alone. It is wrong. 5. It will be useful to quote section 5(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and one of the notifications (all of them are more or less similar), in order to understand the scope of the controversy raised in the writ appeals. "5. Levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods. - ....... (2) .......... It is wrong. 5. It will be useful to quote section 5(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and one of the notifications (all of them are more or less similar), in order to understand the scope of the controversy raised in the writ appeals. "5. Levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods. - ....... (2) .......... (2A)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Rules made thereunder every dealer other than an oil company defined in the Explanation under serial number 140 of the First Schedule to this Act, whose total turnover in a year exceeds rupees twenty-five lakhs shall pay turnover tax at the rate of half per centum on the turnover of goods coming under the First or Fifth Schedule to this Act and in the case of an oil company whose total turnover in a year is rupees fifty lakhs and above shall pay turnover tax at the rate of one per centum, on the turnover : Provided that no tax under this sub-section shall be payable on that part of such turnover, - (i) on which tax is leviable under sub-section (1) of sub-section (2), on such dealer other than an oil company referred to above, except in the case of rubber excluding synthetic rubber, tea, pepper, arecanut and dried ginger; (ii) which relates to : (a) sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; (b) sale or purchase of goods in the course of export out of the territory of India or sale or purchase in the course of import into the territory of India; (c) sale or purchase exempted from tax by notification under section 10; (d) all amounts falling under the head 'freight', when specified and charged for by the dealer separately without including such amounts in the price of the goods sold; (e) all amounts falling under the head 'charges for delivery', when specified and charged for by the dealer separately without including such amounts in the price of the goods sold; (f) all amounts allowed as discount, provided that such discount is allowed in accordance with the regular practice of the dealer or is in accordance with the terms of a contract or agreement entered into in a particular case and provided also that the accounts show that the purchaser has paid only the sum originally charged less discount; (g) all amounts allowed to purchasers in respect of goods returned by them to the dealer when the goods are taxable on sales provided that the goods were returned within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the goods and the accounts show the date on which the goods were returned and the date on which and the amount for which refund was made; and (h) all amounts received from the sellers in respect of goods returned to them by the dealer, when the goods are taxable on the purchase value provided that the goods were returned within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the goods and the accounts show the date on which the goods were returned and the date on which and the amount for which refund was received : Provided further that save as otherwise provided in this sub-section, no other deduction shall be made from the total turnover of a dealer for the purposes of this sub-section. (ii) The provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the assessment, collection or refund of the turnover tax under this sub-section including the provisions relating to appeals and penalties, as they apply in relation to the assessment, collection or refund of tax under the other provisions of this Act. (iii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 22, no dealer shall collect from his purchaser the turnover tax payable by him under this sub-section." "S.R.O. No. 715/88. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (15 of 1963), the Government of Kerala, having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby make an exemption in respect of the turnover tax payable by dealers under sub-section (2A) of section 5 of the said Act, on the turnover of rubber at all points except the penultimate purchase point, viz., purchase point immediately preceding the last purchase point excluding the purchase from the agriculturists whose total turnover exceeds, rupees fifty lakhs in a year subject to the condition that any dealer who claims exemption on such turnover tax shall produce before the assessing authority concerned a declaration in the form annexed to this notification from the dealer who had paid the turnover tax. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from July 1, 1987 and shall be deemed to have been valid till February 18, 1988. ANNEXURE Form of declaration to be furnished by a purchasing dealer for claiming exemption from turnover tax at other points. 1. I/We ...............(here enter the name and full postal address of the purchaser) dealer (s) in goods taxable at the point of purchase in the State, have purchased goods of the description given below from Shri/Messrs .............. [here enter the name and full postal address of the seller (s)]. 2. My/our turnover for the year is not less than rupees fifty lakhs and I/we have paid turnover tax on the turnover of goods mentioned below. 3. My/our registration certificate number is ........ (here enter R.C. No.). 4. I/We am/are registered dealer (s) on the rolls of the sales tax office ......... (here enter the name of the sales tax office) and I/we have filed our return for the month of ......... 3. My/our registration certificate number is ........ (here enter R.C. No.). 4. I/We am/are registered dealer (s) on the rolls of the sales tax office ......... (here enter the name of the sales tax office) and I/we have filed our return for the month of ......... (here enter the month previous to which the purchase relates) along with proof of payment of turnover tax due for the goods which I/we am/are liable to pay. Particulars of goods purchased ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. No. and Description Quantity Value Turnover Remarks No. date of of goods ------------- of goods tax due purchase No. of Weight purchased and paid bill packages issued by the purchaser ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Place : Name, signature and status of the persons signing the declaration. Date : Note. - (1) The declaration shall be filed in duplicate and shall be signed by the person who is authorised to sign return in form No. 9. (2) Any subsequent purchaser may furnish the declaration furnishing the details prescribed therein. [Notification G.O. (P) No. 70/88/TD dated June 13, 1988 in Kerala Gazetted Extraordinary No. 520 dated June 16, 1988.] 6. We examined the various points highlighted before us by Shri Natarajan, in the light of the relevant statutory provisions and the notifications. We also perused through the judgment of the learned single Judge with care. We should say that the learned single Judge has dealt with all material aspects that arose for consideration with admirable clarity and lucidity and we concur with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned single Judge. It is unnecessary to repeat in detail the various arguments pro and con advanced before the learned single Judge as also the resultant conclusion reached in the matter. However, we shall briefly deal with the main aspects highlighted before us and specified in para 4 supra. 7. Point No. (i) : In order to appreciate the contentions raised before us by counsel for the appellants, we should bear in mind the following crucial aspects. They are : The turnover tax levied under section 5(2A) of the Act is a multi-point tax. The levy is not challenged. It is open to the State to levy tax on all points. They are : The turnover tax levied under section 5(2A) of the Act is a multi-point tax. The levy is not challenged. It is open to the State to levy tax on all points. Instead of doing so, the authorities have chosen to give relief in the matter by stating that they intend to collect tax from one person only, in the series of sales or purchases. In other words, relief is given from payment of tax on all points except one. That resulted in the three notifications promulgated by the Government in exercise of the powers vested in it under section 10 of the Act. The policy discernible therefrom is not to give up the tax or collection totally; but to confine it to only one point in the series of sales or purchases. The Legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit to collect tax only from one person in the series of sales or purchases and in order to facilitate the identification or location of the person liable to pay the turnover tax, so that all others in the series may be exempted, the Legislature has devised a means or machinery therefor. That is so done by insisting on the production of a declaration form. The exemption given is only a concession shown by the Legislature. It is for administrative convenience to facilitate the identification or location of a particular person liable to pay the turnover tax, production of a declaration form is insisted. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated at all that the condition imposed by the notification is in any manner against the spirit of fixing liability at one stage; nor can it be stated that the condition imposed in the notifications may not subserve the purpose envisaged by section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Though it was open to the Legislature to levy the turnover tax at all points in the series of sales or purchases under section 5(2A) of the Act, the Legislature has in its wisdom and as a matter of policy shown a concession by confining the levy at one point. The wisdom and propriety of the Legislature in that behalf and the manner in which the said policy is effectuated is not open to scrutiny by the courts. The wisdom and propriety of the Legislature in that behalf and the manner in which the said policy is effectuated is not open to scrutiny by the courts. It is collectible only from one person in the series of sales or purchases and it is only persons who are dealing with the goods who are best fitted to prove an affirmative fact, namely, the person who is liable to pay the turnover tax and who has in fact paid such tax. We are of the view that the plea, that the condition imposed to prove payment of tax runs counter to the policy and purpose envisaged by section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, is without substance. The concession or benefit of one point levy is subject to the condition. It is not open to the assessee to say that the exemption is valid, but not the condition imposed for availing of the exemption. 8. Point No. (ii) : We are not equally impressed with the plea that the notification creates the liability. In fact, a liability is created by section 5(2A) of the Act. It is a multi-point tax At the hearing, however, the learned counsel did not press the question of validity of section 10-B(3) of the Act and restricted his arguments to the validity of the order passed under section 10-B and that of the two notices, referred to above. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of the Act. Its assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 was initially made on March 18, 1980. Thereafter, on the basis of certain information, action under section 21 of the Act was taken and a fresh assessment order was passed on July 31, 1980. Thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer by a petition dated July 6, 1984, pointed out to the Deputy Commissioner that on the basis of the information received from various dealers relating to the use of form 3-C(1), the first purchases made by the petitioner were much more than assessed in the proceedings under section 21 of the Act and, therefore, he felt that the assessment order July 31, 1980, passed under section 21 of the Act be revised. On that basis, the Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings and observing that from an examination of the records of various other dealers, it had come to his notice that the dealer had suppressed its purchases, he revised the assessment raising an additional demand of Rs. 31,575. This order is challenged in the present writ petition. For the assessment year 1976-77, two assessments were made against the petitioner as during the course of the assessment year, the partnership firm had undergone a reconstitution. One assessment was for the period April 1, 1976 to December 22, 1976 and the other was for the period December 23, 1976 to March 31, 1977. For this year, the original assessment was made on December 27, 1980, and on September 3, 1984, the assessing officer intimated to the Deputy Commissioner that after the assessment, information was gathered from the records of various kuchcha arhtis of the area and on scrutiny thereof, it was noticed that a substantial part of the purchases made by the dealer, that is, the present petitioner, had escaped assessment. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, issued the impugned show cause notices to the dealer which have been challenged in this writ petition. Section 10-B of the Act was inserted by U.P. Act No. 12 of 1979 with effect from October 3, 1980. It provides that the Commissioner of Sales Tax or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax ..... may call for and examine the record relating to any order passed by any officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality and propriety of such order and may pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this section having come into force from October 3, 1980, it will not give jurisdiction to the Deputy Commissioner to revise an order for the assessment year 1975-76 that was passed prior to its enactment, that is, on July 31, 1980. This contention is not acceptable because sub-clause (c) of section 10-B(3) provides a period of four years from the date of the order during which the power of revision under section 10-B of the Act could be exercised. Since the contention regarding the validity of that clause has been given up, this contention cannot prevail as long as that sub-clause exists. Since the contention regarding the validity of that clause has been given up, this contention cannot prevail as long as that sub-clause exists. The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that section 10-B of the Act can be invoked only to examine the legality or propriety of an order and it cannot be invoked for bringing to tax the turnover that has escaped assessment and for which action under section 21 only could be taken. Elucidating the point further, it was pointed out that the information on the basis of which it is assumed by the authorities below that the dealer's turnover had escaped assessment was not available on the record when the orders sought to be revised were passed by the officers concerned. That information was gathered later on, as is evident from the application dated July 6, 1984, moved by the assessing officer for the assessment year 1975-76 (annexure 3 to the writ petition), the impugned order dated July 26, 1984, and the two notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner on September 19, 1984 (annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition). In the counter-affidavit, it has been admitted in paragraph 5 that it was subsequently revealed that the dealer had issued forms 3-C(1) to kuchcha arhtis for in excess of the turnover assessed and, therefore, the action taken by the Deputy Commissioner under section 10-B of the Act was legal and that it was wrong to suggest that section 10-B cannot be utilised for taxing the escaped turnover. It is clear from a perusal of the documents, referred to above, that the information on the basis of which it was assumed that the turnover had escaped assessment and action under section 10-B of the Act was initiated, was not on the record of the assessing officer when he passed the order that has been revised or the orders for the assessment year 1976-77 that were proposed to be revised. Section 21 of the Act gives jurisdiction to the assessing officer to assess the turnover that has not been assessed during the year. He can exercise this power if he has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of any dealer has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed. Such action can be taken within four years. He can exercise this power if he has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of any dealer has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed. Such action can be taken within four years. In this case, the limitation for taking action under section 21 of the Act had, admittedly, expired and it was for this reason that recourse was taken to the powers vested in the Deputy Commissioner under section 10-B of the Act. However, as is evident from the provisions of section 10-B, it is not a substitute or alternative for section 21. The revisional jurisdiction conferred by section 10-B of the Act is limited, to the examination of the legality or propriety of an order passed by a subordinate officer. The legality or propriety of an order passed by such officer has to be tested with reference to the material that is available on the record or with regard to any omission made by him, which, as an intelligent assessing officer, he should not have made. Similar powers of revision were conferred on the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act and in Ganga Properties v. Income-tax Officer [1979] 118 ITR 447, the Calcutta High Court took the view that the word "record" could not mean the "record", as it stood at the time of examination by the Commissioner, but it meant "record" as it stood at the time the order was passed by the Income-tax Officer. In that case, the assessment was sought to be revised under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of a valuation report obtained after the assessment had already been made. It was held that this could not be done. Some other High Courts also shared this view and the Legislature, ultimately, amended section 263 by adding an explanation by the Finance Act, 1988. In the explanation, the word "record" was defined to include all records relating to any proceedings under the Act available at the time of examination by the Commissioner. Under the Sales Tax Act, no such explanation was enacted and, therefore, the word "record" used in section 10-B has to be taken to mean the "record", as it existed at the time when the order sought to be revised was passed. Under the Sales Tax Act, no such explanation was enacted and, therefore, the word "record" used in section 10-B has to be taken to mean the "record", as it existed at the time when the order sought to be revised was passed. In this case, there is not even an inkling to show that when the orders sought to be revised were passed by the subordinate officers, they committed an illegality or impropriety in passing those orders by under assessing the dealer's turnover. The assessing officer in his petition dated July 6, 1984, has not said that his predecessor, who made the assessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act made any mistake while passing that order. In the order passed under section 10-B of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner also, there is not even an observation that there was any illegality or impropriety committed by the officer who passed the order which the learned Deputy Commissioner has revised. Similarly, in the two notices issued for the assessment year 1976-77, there is nothing of this sort. On the other hand, there are clear indications that subsequent to the completion of the assessments, some information was gathered with reference to the records of other dealers which indicated that the petitioner-dealer had made more purchases than what had been already assessed. If a certain information was not available at the time of making of the assessment, the officer making an assessment cannot be said to have acted illegally or with impropriety by not using that information because it was impossible to use the information that did not exist. It is, therefore, clear that, in this case, the order passed under section 10-B of the Act for the assessment year 1975-76 and the two notices for the assessment year 1976-77 have not proceeded on the basis that there was any illegality or impropriety in the assessment orders, but are based on the ground that subsequent to the making of those orders, information had been gathered showing that the petitioner's turnover of purchases had escaped assessment. Thus, section 10-B of the Act has been used as a substitute for section 21, because the limitation for invoking section 21 had expired. Thus, section 10-B of the Act has been used as a substitute for section 21, because the limitation for invoking section 21 had expired. Section 10-B cannot be used for such a purpose and has to be restricted to the examination of the legality or propriety of the order on the basis of the record, as it existed at the time when the order sought to be revised was passed. Learned Standing Counsel contended that, in this case, substantial justice has been done by the Deputy Commissioner by bringing to tax the turnover that had escaped assessment and, therefore, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. This contention is not tenable. An order passed by an officer imposing a financial liability on a citizen in exercise of jurisdiction that he does not possess cannot be sustained on the plea of substantial justice. For the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated July 26, 1984 (annexure "5" to the writ petition) and the two notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner on September 19, 1984, (annexures "6" and "7" to the writ petition). The petitioner shall get its costs of this writ petition from the respondents. Petition allowed.