JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by K. 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 [1995] 99 STC 473 (Ker) supra; 1994 KLJ (TC) 369, in view of the Bench decision in W.A. No. 908 of 1993. 2. Writ Appeal No. 908 of 1993 arose from the decision of a learned single Judge in O.P. No. 1084 of 1993, reported as Jyothi Laboratories v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1994] 94 STC 199 (Ker); 1993 KLJ (TC) 666. In that case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who had Statewide 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 section 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 section 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 section 45A cannot be disputed. Dealing with this aspect, the Division Bench opined that proceedings initiated under section 45A by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is proper and there 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 [1995] 99 STC 473 (supra); 1994 KLJ (TC) 369 (Sivaramakrishnan v. State of Kerala), the issue dealt with by the same learned Judge who decided [1994] 94 STC 199 (Ker); 1993 KLJ (TC) 666 (Jyothi Laboratories v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner), 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 section 3(2) of the Act limited the area of operation of any particular officer to certain local limits and not unlimited throughout the State. The learned Judge took the view that section 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 section 3(2) and is ultra vires of the said provision. In that case, the petition was an assessee on the files of Sales Tax Officer, Kollam. His place of business and residence were simultaneously searched by the Intelligence Officers of Alappuzha and Kottayam. Kottayam officer issued notice initiating proceedings under section 45A of the Act. That officer had, as per notification issued by the State, Statewide 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 section 45A(a) is 'the assessing authority' who includes, thanks to explanation II, any officer not below the rank of a Sales Tax Officer specified by Government, by notification in the Gazette. The notification exhibit P14 was intended for this purpose and thereby an Intelligence Officer also became an 'assessing authority' entitled to impose penalty under section 45A(1). But this 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 powers vested in them by sub-section (2) of section 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 section 45A by virtue of explanation II read with the notification exhibit P14 but this can only be within the local limits assigned to each of them. This appointment enables them to impose the penalty under sub-section (1) of section 45A by virtue of explanation II read with the notification exhibit 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 section 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 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. No. 18395 of 1994 is, as agreed to by learned counsel appearing in these petitions, treated as the main case. The facts of that case is as follows : The petitioner-company is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and 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 August 25, 1993. The 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 August 16, 1994 calling for explanation as to why penalty should not be imposed under section 45A of the Act. The company filed their reply dated September 26, 1994. The 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 exhibit 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. The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Officer to pass an order like exhibit P1, because it is contended that the jurisdiction to exercise power under section 45A in respect of dealers in Idukki district vests with Intelligence Officer, Idukki and not on the first respondent. On this ground petitioner wants exhibit P1 order to be quashed. 5. The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Officer to pass an order like exhibit P1, because it is contended that the jurisdiction to exercise power under section 45A in respect of dealers in Idukki district vests with Intelligence Officer, Idukki and not on the first respondent. On this ground petitioner wants exhibit 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 functions 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 the 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 local 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. This 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, section 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. According to us, section 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 appoints an officer to have Statewide 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 Balaji 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 assessment under the Act. In other words the contention was, the Assistant Commissioners 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 Statewide jurisdiction cannot be of any assistance to us in deciding the issue urged in these cases. This view taken by the Bench in relation to orders of assessments passed by officers having Statewide jurisdiction cannot be of any assistance to us in deciding the issue urged in these cases. It is settled law that proceedings under section 45A of the Kerala Act and the assessment proceedings are distinct and different. The proceedings contemplated by section 45A has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. 7. Chapter V of the 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. 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 assessee [vide section 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 section 45A, which falls within Chapter VIII of the Act, are not limited to the authority having jurisdiction over the area. Proceedings under section 45A can be initiated and continued by the assessing authority who has been specified by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette. First respondents in these cases being officers notified by the Government as assessing authorities, are competent to initiate action against the petitioners under section 45A of the Act. In the above circumstances, we do not find any vice in the action taken by the Intelligence Officers under section 45A of the Act. The conclusion arrived at by us is that an officer of the department who is conferred Statewide jurisdiction by the Government by notification can initiate action under section 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 [1995] 99 STC 473 (Ker) (supra); 1994 KLJ (TC) 369, is not correct and we overrule the same. The contrary view taken by the learned Single Judge in Sivaramakrishnan's case [1995] 99 STC 473 (Ker) (supra); 1994 KLJ (TC) 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 section 45A of the Act. The petitioners 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. Petitions dismissed.