Judgment :- Sreedharan, J. These Original Petitions have come before us on reference made by a learned Single Judge doubting the correctness of the decision in Sivaramakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 1994 KLJ (Tax Cases) 369, in view of the Bench decision in W.A.908/93. 2, Writ Appeal 908/93 arose from the decision of a learned Single Judge in O.P.I084/93, reported as Jyothi Laboratories v. Inspecting Asst. Commissioner, 1993 KLJ (Tax Cases) 666. In that case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who had State wide jurisdiction, inspected the business premises of the petitioner therein and issued notice alleging failure to keep true and complete accounts as also submission of untrue or incorrect returns constituting offences under S.45A(b) and (d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". While replying to the notice, the petitioner inter-alia raised a contention that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is not competent to initiate action under S.45A because he was not having jurisdiction assigned to any local limits. Learned Single judge took the view that the fact that the officer who issued the notice is competent authority to initiate proceedings under S.45A cannot be disputed. Dealing with this aspect, the Division Bench opined that proceedings initiated under S.45A by the Inspecting Assistant' Commissioner is proper and ther is no reason to refer the proceedings to the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the local limits within which the assessee is having his establishment. 3. In 1994 KLJ (Tax Cases) 369, the issue dealt with the same learned judge who decided 1993 KLJ (Tax Cases) 666, was when Section 3(2) speaks of appointment of officers for exercising powers within the local limits assigned to them, can power throughout the State be conferred on an officer? The learned judge took the view that S.3(2) of the Act limited the area of operation of any particular officer to certain local limits and not unlimited throughout the State. Consequently, the learned judge concluded that conferment of power throughout the State is not in consonance with S.3(2) and is ultra vires of the said provision. In that case, petitioner was an assessee on the files of Sales Tax Officer. Kollam. His place of business and residence were simultaneously searched by Intelligence Officers of Alappuzha and Kottayam. Kottayam officer issued notice initiating proceedings under. S.45A of the Act. In that case, petitioner was an assessee on the files of Sales Tax Officer. Kollam. His place of business and residence were simultaneously searched by Intelligence Officers of Alappuzha and Kottayam. Kottayam officer issued notice initiating proceedings under. S.45A of the Act. That officer had, as per notification issued by the State, State wide jurisdiction. Notification conferring jurisdiction over the entire State was questioned. Dealing with this aspect, the learned judge observed:- "One of the two authorities who could act under S.45A(1) is "the assessing authority" who includes, thanks to Explanation II, any officer not below the rank of a Sales Tax Officer specified by Government notification in the Gazette. The notification Ext. P14 was intended for this purpose and thereby an Intelligence Officer also became an "assessing authority" entitled to impose penalty under S.45A(1). But this by itself may not suffice to enable an Intelligence Officer to impose penalty under S.45A(1). But his by itself may not suffice to enable an Intelligence Officer to impose penalty anywhere in the State. The appointment of an Intelligence Officer is done by Government by virtue of the power vested in them by subsection (2) of S.3, and, on such appointment, he shall perform his functions under the Act within such local limits as the Government or any other authority empowered in that behalf may assign to him. Chronologically therefore, the first act is for Government to appoint Intelligence Officers. On such appointment they perform the functions assigned to them under the Act, but the exercise of the power will be confined to the local limits assigned to each by Government or any other authority. This appointment enables them to impose the penalty under sub-section (1) of S.45A by virtue of Explanation II read with the notification Ext. P14 but this can only be within the local limits assigned to each of them. This is all the effect of the inclusive definition of "assessing authority" in Explanation II of S.45A(1)". Thereafter the learned judge allowed the proceedings initiated by the Kottayam officer to be continued by an officer having jurisdiction ordinarily over Kollam area. It was also observed that the records seized and materials collected by the Kottayam officer are not to be eschewed. Correctness of this view is under challenge. We shall proceed to examine the correctness of the view taken by the learned judge. 4. It was also observed that the records seized and materials collected by the Kottayam officer are not to be eschewed. Correctness of this view is under challenge. We shall proceed to examine the correctness of the view taken by the learned judge. 4. O.P. 18395/94 is, as agreed to by learned counsel appearing in these petitions, treated as the main case. The facts of that case is as follows: - Petitioner Company is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act the Central Sales Tax Act on the files of the Sales Tax Officer, Adimali. The business place of the Company at Adimali was inspected by the Intelligence Officer (Investigation branch) and party attached to the office of the Deputy Commissioner (I), Trivandrum on 25-8-1993. They seized certain records. After verification of the accounts and seized records with the shop inspection report the Intelligence Officer found defects and irregularities on the account. Notice was issued to the Company on 16-8-1994 calling for explanation as to why penalty should not be imposed under S.45A of the Act. Company filed their reply dated 26-9-1994. Company did not avail of the opportunity to put forth their case on the dates on which the matter was posted for hearing. The Intelligence Officer thereupon issued Ext. P1 order imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,22,148/- for the year 1992-93 and a further sum of Rs. 23,04,924/- as penalty for the year 1993-94. Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Officer to pass an order like Ext. P1, because it is contended that the jurisdiction to exercise power under S.45A in respect of dealers in Idukki District vests with Intelligence Officer, Idukki and not on the first respondent. On this ground petitioner wants Ext. P1 order to be quashed. 5. Section 3(2) of the Act is in the following terms: - "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 fu actions within such local limits as the Government or any authority or officer empowered by them in this behalf may assign to them". Such officers shall perform the said fu actions within such local limits as the Government or any authority or officer empowered by them in this behalf may assign to them". From this, it is clear that Government can appoint as many officers as they think fit for the purpose of performing the functions respectively assigned to them by or under the Act. This power of the Government is virtually absolute in the sense that the Government has the power to appoint Deputy Commissioners, Appellate Assistant Commissioners, Inspecting Assistant Commissioners, Sales Tax Officers and such other officers as the situation requires. When such officers are so appointed, the latter part of the above clause says that they should perform the functions assigned to them within such limits as the Government may assign to them. According to us, the latter part of the clause is a restriction on the powers of the officers. If an officer has been appointed by the Government to exercise functions under the Act within certain local limits, then such officer can perform the duties within such limits and such limits only. The limitation on the jurisdiction of the officer is not to be read in a manner restricting the power of the Government to assign any function to an officer appointed as per the earlier part of the clause. According to us, S.3(2) of the Act empowers the Government to appoint officers and to confer upon them duty to perform the functions in respect of any area. It may be some local limits or it may be the whole State. If an officer is so authorised to perform the functions within the local limit, then that officer can discharge his duties only within that local limits. Likewise, if the Government appoint an officer to have State wide jurisdiction, the said officer can certainly perform the functions assigned to him throughout the State. 6. Learned counsel representing the petitioners raised a contention that the Government have no power to-appoint an officer to exercise any function under the Act throughout, the entire State. If an officer is conferred with Statewide jurisdiction, then the appointment of such an officer is ultra vires the Section and so any action taken by him should be treated as one without jurisdiction. In support of this argument, they sought reliance on the Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri. If an officer is conferred with Statewide jurisdiction, then the appointment of such an officer is ultra vires the Section and so any action taken by him should be treated as one without jurisdiction. In support of this argument, they sought reliance on the Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri. Ralaji Rice Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, (1984) 55 STC 292. In that case, the question that was considered by the Court was whether an officer who has been conferred jurisdiction throughout the State can function throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh for making assessments under the Act. The contention was that officers under the Andhra Pradesh Act can only perform functions under the Act under such local limits as assigned to them by the State and that officer cannot be empowered to function throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh for making assessments under the Act. In other words the contention was, the Assistant Commissioner of Intelligence and the Commercial Tax Officers, Intelligence, not being officers authorised to perform the functions within the local limits, have no jurisdiction to take any proceeding for making assessments or levy of tax and penalties. The Bench took the view that the impugned proceedings taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Intelligence or the Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence against the petitioners to make assessments are illegal and without jurisdiction. This view taken by the Bench in relation to orders of assessments passed by officers having State-wide jurisdiction cannot be of any assistance to us in deciding the issue urged in these cases. It is settled law that proceedings under S.45 Aof the Act and the assessment proceedings are distinct and different. The proceedings contemplated by S.45 A has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. ' 7. Chapter V of She Act deals with the assessment, collection and penalty of tax under the Act. The assessment under the Act is to be made by the assessing authority authorised in that behalf. That assessing authority should be one within whose local limits the dealer is having his. establishment For a local area, there may be more than one assessing authority. The assessment under the Act is to be made by the assessing authority authorised in that behalf. That assessing authority should be one within whose local limits the dealer is having his. establishment For a local area, there may be more than one assessing authority. In such a case, the Board of Revenue or the Deputy Commissioner may specify one of the assessing authorities having jurisdiction over the area, which should deal with any case or cases relating to any assessee or class of assessees (vide S.3(4) of the act). Only such an assessing authority having jurisdiction over the local limits can pass an order of assessment. But, proceedings under S.45 A, which falls within Chap. VIII of the Act, is not limited to the authority having jurisdiction over the area. Proceeding under S.45A can be initialed and continued by assessing authority who has been specified by the Government in this behalf by notification in the gazette. First respondent in these cases being officers notified by the Government as assessing authorities, are competent to initiate action against the petitioner under S.45 A of the Act. In the above circumstances, we do not find any vice in the action taken by the Intelligence Officers under S.45A of me Act. The conclusion arrived at by us is that an officer of the department who is conferred state-wide jurisdiction by the Government by notification can initiate action under S.45A of the Act as against dealers having business anywhere in the State and that action can never be held to be without jurisdiction on the ground that such officer is not having jurisdiction over any local limits. The contrary view taken by the learned Single Judge in Sivaramakrishnan's case ,1994 KLJ (Tax Cases) 369, is not correct and we overrule the same. In these proceedings we are not to examine the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the officers under S.45A of the Act. Petitioner are having effective alternate remedy by way of revision against those orders. Without prejudice to their rights to challenge the impugned orders as per the provisions of the Act, Original Petitions are dismissed. We make no order as to costs.