G. RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) THESE five appeals involve common questions of law and fact and are thus heard and disposed of by this common judgment. Brief overview of facts leading to the Iis: (1) The appellant (Ass,essee) is a dealer in beedies. It was initially assessed for the years 1985-86 to 1989-90 (5 years) on nil taxable turnovers by the C. T. O. , Nizamabad-II. (2) The successor C. T. O. reopened the assessments under Section 14 (4) of the APGST Act, 1957 (for short, the act )- Rejecting the plea of the assessee, the C. T. O. held that the assessee is the last purchaser of beedi leaves within the State and brought to tax assessed Gross turnover and Net turnover for the five assessment years. He also imposed penalties for all the assessment years. (3) Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals to the appellate Deputy commissioner (CT), Secunderabad (hereinafter, the first appellate authority ). On an analysis of the record, the Appellate Authority held that the assessee was a purchaser of finished beedies and was never a purchaser of beedi leaves let alone the last purchaser. Consequently the appeals were allowed and the revised assessment orders and consequent penalties set aside. (4) By the orders under appeal the commissioner of Commercial taxes exercising revisional power under Section 20 (1) of the Act invalidated the appellate orders in respect of all the five assessment years. While directing that the cost of the beedi leaves shall be subjected to Sales-tax at the hands of the assessee and at the quantum assessed by the C. T. O. the revisional Authority confirmed the orders of the Appellate Authority to the extent the latter set aside the penalty orders for the 5 years. ( 2 ) THIS batch of appeals arise from the revisional orders of the Commissioner of commercial Taxes dated 24-9-1994 passed under Section 20 (1) of the Act. ( 3 ) THE contentions urged by sri P. Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the appellant, inter alia, in brief, are as under: (I) The assessee s agent M/s. Balaji and Co. having paid the tax on the beedi leaves for the 5 assessment years in question, there is no prejudice to the interests of revenue, warranting exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 20 (1) of the Act. having paid the tax on the beedi leaves for the 5 assessment years in question, there is no prejudice to the interests of revenue, warranting exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 20 (1) of the Act. (II) The finding of the Revisional authority that the assessee is the last purchaser of the beedi leaves in the State and thus liable to tax, is based on a clearly erroneous construction of the agreement between the assessee and m/s. Balaji and Co. , besides being contrary to the record. (III) The order of the C. T. O. reopening the assessments under Section 14 (4) of the Act was ultra vires the scope of his power under that provision. This aspect, though canvassed before the 1st. Appellate Authority, was not dealt with by that authority, who proceeded to grant relief on other and substantive grounds. This aspect was canvassed in the detailed objections of the assessee to the notice of the revisional Authority proposing revision. It was however not dealt with. Had this aspect been considered the orders of the C. T. O. reopening the assessments were liable to have been declared non est and consequently the revisions liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) IN the light of the analysis following, the other contentions urged in the appeals are not recorded. Analysis of the relevant factual matrix qua the contentions in the appeals: ( 5 ) AS the issues are identical, the facts in special Appeal No. 50 of 1999 are considered for analysis. (A) This appeal is directed against the revisional order of the commissioner of Commercial taxes in respect of the assessment year for 1985-86. (B) The Assessing Authority by the order dt. 29-3-98 determined the total turnover of the sale of beedies at Rs. 27,05,580. 00. Beedies being exempted from liability to Sales- tax, the total turnover was exempt and the Assessing Authority thereupon passed a nil assessment order! This decision was arrived at on the basis of the finding that "there are no beedi leaves purchases and the assessee received the beedi leaves arid beedies from his head office m/s. Balaji and Co, Kisannagar. " (C) In purported exercise of the powers available under Section 14 (4) of the act the C. T. O.-II, Nizarhabad, reopened the assessment. By the order dt. " (C) In purported exercise of the powers available under Section 14 (4) of the act the C. T. O.-II, Nizarhabad, reopened the assessment. By the order dt. 20-3-92 the assessee s liability to payment of tax was determined on a net turnover of rs. 10,92,541. 00, on which a tax liability of Rs. 78,117. 00 was determined. Penalty was also imposed. This determination was arrived at on a finding that the assessee firm paid the value of beedi leaves to M/s. Balaji and Co, kisannagar, which amounts to purchase of beedi leaves and the assessee thus figures as the last purchaser in the State thus liable to pay tax on the beedi. leaves as per item-18 of the II Schedule of the act. A finding was also recorded that the assessee firm supplies tobacco mixture along with other packing material except beedi leaves to M/s. Balaji and Co,, who in turn hands over the particular brand no. 1521 beedies to the assessee-firm and collects labour charges, duty (Excise duty paid on behalf of the assessee) and the value of the beedi leaves and that this factum is evident from the entries at page 21 of LF of the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86. (D) As against the above order the assessee preferred an appeal to the first Appellate Authority. By the order dt. 2-12-92 the Appellate deputy Commissioner (CT) allowed the appeal. The first appellate Authority analysed the ledger extract (LF 21 of the ledger for the year 1985-86) and found that the entries indicate certain amounts having been paid in lumpsum to M/s. Balaji and Co, kisannagar, without any indication, however, that these amounts relate to purchase of beedi leaves. The agreement between the assessee and M/s. Balaji and Co, was also construed. Under the agreement the appellate firm has to supply tobacco. Gunnies, label, thread, paper and other packing material and the contractor (M/s. Balaji and Co) had to purchase beedi leaves of good variety and pay the taxes, if any, to be paid by the contractor to the commercial Taxes Department. Under the agreement the appellate firm has to supply tobacco. Gunnies, label, thread, paper and other packing material and the contractor (M/s. Balaji and Co) had to purchase beedi leaves of good variety and pay the taxes, if any, to be paid by the contractor to the commercial Taxes Department. The first Appellate Authority also found that the assessment order of m/s. Balaji and Co, supports the terms of the contract between the parties as contained in the agreement and that the Assessing authority of M/s. Balaji and Co, determined the said assessee to be a manufacturer of beedies by purchasing beedi leaves and fuel required for manufacture of beedies for commission and the other raw material such as tobacco, labels, yarn etc. , would be supplied by such firms for whom the assessee-manufacturers the beedies. It was also held that m/s. Balaji and Co, is a manufacturer of beedies for others also apart from the appellant firm and that the beedi leaves required for such manufacture were purchased by M/s. Balaji and Co. ( 6 ) ON an analysis of the record and the findings above the first Appellate Authority concluded that M/s. Balaji and Co. supplied finished beedies for sale to the appellant and not beedi leaves as assumed by the Revisional Authority without any basis and that there has been no purchase of beedi leaves at the hands of the appellant, leave alone the last purchase, as per the evidence available in the record. The turnover determined by the Assessing authority having found to be purely illusory and based on surmises and in further view of the fact that the purchase of beedi leaves by M/s. Balaji and Co, was duly assessed to tax by the Assessing authority whereby the interests of the revenue are not jeopardised in any way and the tax due on the alleged purchase of beedi leaves having been paid by M/s. Balaji and co, the first Appellate Authority concluded that the impugned levy of tax on the erroneously assumed purchase of beedi leaves at the hands of the appellant, is not sustainable. Consequently the order of penalty was also set aside. (E) The Commissioner of Commercial taxes by a composite show-cause notice dt. Consequently the order of penalty was also set aside. (E) The Commissioner of Commercial taxes by a composite show-cause notice dt. 12-7-94 (for all the 5 assessment years 1985-86 to 1989-90) called upon the assessee to file its objections against the proposal to set aside the orders of the first Appellate Authority and restore the orders of the Assessing authority dt. 20-3-92 including of the penalty levied for all the assessment years. The show-cause notice was issued on the stated premise that the assessee is a seller of beedies and the last purchaser of beedi leaves in the State to the extent of value of beedi leaves involved in the transaction of beedies. The show-cause notice also stated that the orders of the first Appellate Authority are prejudicial to the interests of revenue. (F) The assessee submitted a detailed memorandum of objections to the aforesaid show-cause notice. The assessee categorically stated that it has not purchased any beedi leaves so as to be fastened with the liability to pay tax on such purchases, the actual purchase of beedi leaves was by M/s. Balaji and Co, on whom the liability to pay Sales-tax vests, M/s. Balaji and co, is an assessee on the rolls of c. T. O. , Nizamabad-II and has been assessed to and paid tax on the purchase of beedi leaves made by him, for all the 5 assessment years. The copies of the assessment orders of M/s. Balaji and Co, for the 5 assessment years were enclosed by the assessee along trie memorandum of objections. The assessee further stated that its payment made to M/s. Sri. Balaji and Co are related to the quantity of beedies supplied and not to the quantity of beedi leaves purchased by Balaji. The assessee also specifically asserted that the first appellate Authority had not decided all the grounds raised in the appeal and that the order reopening the assessment is unsustainable for transgressing the limits of the jurisdiction and powers under Section 14 (4) of the act since there was no fresh material before the Assessing authority de hors the assessment record, warranting exercise of power under Section 14 (4) of the act. (G) The Commissioner of Commercial taxes (Revisional Authority) by the order dt. 24-9-94 revised the order and determined the assessee s liability to tax, as the last purchaser of beedi leaves. (G) The Commissioner of Commercial taxes (Revisional Authority) by the order dt. 24-9-94 revised the order and determined the assessee s liability to tax, as the last purchaser of beedi leaves. The Commissioner however, held that from the totality of circumstances of the case it was apparent that all relevant facts were mentioned by the assessee and there being no dishonesty or wilful suppression of the turnover on the part of the assessee, there is no liability to pay penalty. In conclusion the order of the first appellate Authority was pro tanto set aside to the extent of the liability to pay tax while confirming the order to the extent the penalty was erased. (H) The reason recorded by the revisional Authority in support of the conclusion as to the liability of the assessee to the tax is set out at para 7 of the order impugned, which being of significance is extracted: " (7) While it may be true that there was no loss of revenue by way of sales-tax on beedi leaves for the government, it is necessary to tax the right person as per the law, It is clearly laid down in the agreement referred to above that M/s. Balaji and Co, will receive commission for the manufacture of beedis. According to chambers Dictionary page 253, commission, amongst other things means "percentage paid to an agent". In the normal trade parlance, commission is a percentage of the value of goods under sale or purchase, paid to an agent, for organising the activity of sale or purchase. It is compensating the agent for his efforts and services. Commission is not the value of the goods supplied. As such, it is clear from the wording of the agreement that M/s. Balaji and Co, were to be paid commission for getting the beedies manufactured. Naturally, since they were also procuring beedi leaves on behalf of the assessee, they should be paid the cost of the beedi leaves on behalf of the assessee, they should be paid the cost of the beedi leaves. They should also be paid the excise duty, as they would be remitting the same on behalf of the assessee. It is to be noted that beedis were not being sold by M/s. Balaji and co, to the assessee; in which case, there will be only one single consolidated price. They should also be paid the excise duty, as they would be remitting the same on behalf of the assessee. It is to be noted that beedis were not being sold by M/s. Balaji and co, to the assessee; in which case, there will be only one single consolidated price. If certain goods were supplied by the assessee to m/s. Balaji and Co, for the manufacture of the beedis, then credit could be taken for the value of the goods like tobacco and accounts settled. This is the procedure adopted for all contractors by the P. W. D. and others. If such were the position, then the situation would be that of a seller and a buyer of beedis. It is very clear from the agreement that it was not so. M/s. Balaji and Co, were commissioned to manufacture beedis. They were being paid for getting beedis manufactured. They were buying beedi leaves on behalf "of the assessee, who paid them the cost of the beedi leaves. As such, judging by the agreement entered into between the assessee and M/s. Balaji and Co, the last purchaser of the beedi leaves in the State is the assessee herein and not m/s. Balaji and Co. M/s. Balaji and co, were only purchasing beedi leaves on behalf of the assessee, but that does not made them the last purchaser within the State. One more interpretation is also possible. If m/s. Balaji and Co, purchased the beedi leaves on their own account, because they might have bought for more than one client, in turn they sold the beedi leaves to the assessee, who paid the cost of the same and also paid commission for getting manufactured the beedies. From that point of view also, the last purchaser of beedi leaves within the State were the assessees. There was no sale transaction of beedis between the assessee and M/s. Balaji and Co, as already stated above. As such, from any point of view, I am of the opinion that the assessee herein were the last purchasers of beedi leaves within the State and are definitely liable for Sales-tax on that purchases. To that extent, I conclude that the orders of ADC are incorrect and illegal. As such, from any point of view, I am of the opinion that the assessee herein were the last purchasers of beedi leaves within the State and are definitely liable for Sales-tax on that purchases. To that extent, I conclude that the orders of ADC are incorrect and illegal. " (I) The Revisional Authority rejected the contention of the assessee with regard to patent lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority in reopening the assessment under section 14 (4) of the Act by holding that the subject matter of the revision is the order of the first appellate Authority and not the order of the Assessing Authority reopening the assessment. ( 7 ) SRI Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the appellants combats the orders of the assessing Authority reopening the assessment, as also the order of the revisional Authority confirming the same, additionally on the ground that the formula adopted by the Assessing Authority to estimate the turnover of beedi leaves is incorrect, irrational, arbitrary and patently unsustainable. Reliance is placed for this contention on the decision rendered by this court in Sri Laxmi Satyanarayana Rice Mill vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and of the madras High Court in Sri Kalyani Oil Mills vs. State of Madras. ( 8 ) YET another contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that the Assessing authority acted without jurisdiction and patently beyond the ambit of the powers available under Section 14 (4) of the Act as the reopening of the assessment has been made demonstrably on the basis of the record available with the initial Assessing authority and no fresh material was either available or analysed in reopening the assessment. Reliance for this contention was placed on the decisions of this Court in fatecliand and Co vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, ratnasri Box Makers, Rajahmundry vs. State of andhra Pradesh and Girdharlal and Co vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid two contentions, we decline to adjudicate in the light of our decision, on an analysis of other and substantive questions. ( 10 ) RELYING on the decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Lohant Steel industries Ltd. it is urged on behalf of the appellants that the revisional order is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. ( 10 ) RELYING on the decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Lohant Steel industries Ltd. it is urged on behalf of the appellants that the revisional order is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. The contention, in specie, is that any exercise of powers under Section 20 of the act by the Revisional Authority could only be on the grounds mentioned in the show- cause notice as else the rationale underlying the requirement of affording reasonable opportunity would be subverted. The factual complaint in this area is that the show-cause notice dt 12-7-94 was laconic and contained only a blanket statement that"the assessee is the seller of beedi leaves and that he is the last purchaser of beedi leaves in the State to the extent of value of beedi leaves involved in the transaction of beedies", the assessee has thus been denied reasonable opportunity to canvass its objections and the Revisional Authority has based its conclusions on groundandnot set out in the show-cause notice. " ( 11 ) IT is seen from the record of the case that the assessee had no misapprehension as to the extent and scope of the grounds for the proposed revisions All relevant objections have been canvassed and in extenso in the appellant s explanation to the show-cause notice and have been considered by the Revisional Authority. There is thus no warrant for concluding that the revisional order is vitiated on account of any denial of reasonable opportunity to the assessee. ( 12 ) THE dialectics of the audi alteram partem rule has, in contemporaneous administrative law, evolved dynamically. The means-based technical view has been eschewed in favour of the holistic and effect-analysis model. Violation of natural justice is by itself, no longer sufficient to invalidate State action. A clear prejudice that has been suffered by the violation needs to be pleaded and demonstrated. This is the current and operative doctrine-vide s. L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan; K. L. Tripathi vs. S. B. I; Rajender Singh vs. State of Madhya pradesh; M. C. vs. Union of India and aligarh Muslim University vs. Mansoor AH khan. ( 13 ) IN the present appeals, it is seen that the assessee has comprehended the grounds on which the Revision has been proposed by the Commissioner of commercial Taxes. ( 13 ) IN the present appeals, it is seen that the assessee has comprehended the grounds on which the Revision has been proposed by the Commissioner of commercial Taxes. This is clear from the elaborate-all encompassing objections put forward by him to the show-cause notice. There is thus no violation of natural justice nor any prejudice suffered by the assessee established, warranting invalidation of the orders in revision on this ground. Is the assessee liable to the payment of tax: ( 14 ) THERE was an oral agreement between the assessee and M/s. Balaji and co, Kisahnagar, since 1985, which was reduced to writing in the year 1987. In the order under Revision, the Commissioner went about construing the agreement dated 10-9-1987 between the assessee and m/s. Balaji and Co, focussing on the expression "commission" employed in the said agreement. In substance, the Revisional order identified the meaning of the said expression by a lexicographic approach. Finding the terms of the agreement different from the terms adopted in contracts of the Public Works Department and others, the Revisional Authority concluded that M/s. Balaji and Co, were not the suppliers/sellers of beedies to the assessee, but were mere commission agents for the manufacture of beedies. M/s. Balaji and Co, were buying the beedi leaves on behalf of the assessee and were collecting the cost of the beedi leaves apart from the cost of the labour and packing charges, is another finding. ( 15 ) THE task of construction/ interpretation of contracts is by no means, as simple a task, as would, at first blush, appear. It is as delicate and complex an exercise as is construction and interpretation of statutory instruments. The object sought to be achieved in construing any contract is to ascertain what the actual intentions of the parties were as to the legal obligations each assumed by the contractual words in which they sought to express them. The intention of the parties is to be gathered from the meaning of the words used and there could be no intention independent of that meaning. ( 16 ) IN Great Western Railway vs. Bristol corporation, Lord Shaw sounded the caveat in the following words:". . . . . . The intention of the parties is to be gathered from the meaning of the words used and there could be no intention independent of that meaning. ( 16 ) IN Great Western Railway vs. Bristol corporation, Lord Shaw sounded the caveat in the following words:". . . . . . ONE hears much use made of the word intention , but Courts of law when on the work of interpretation are not engaged upon the task or study of what parties intended to do, but of what the language which they employed showed that they did, in other words, they are not construing a contract on the lines of what may be thought to have been what the parties intended, but they are construing words and expressions used by the parties themselves. What do these mean? That when ascertained is the meaning of the contract by which the parties are bound. The suggestion of an intention of parties different from the meaning conveyed by the words employed is no part of interpretation, but is mere confusion". (Emphasis supplied) ( 17 ) LORD Justice May, set out limits of the interpretive exercise in Ashville Investments limited vs. Elmer Contractors Limited in the following words:". . . . . . . . . . . . IN seeking to construe a clause in a contract; there is no scope for adopting either a liberal or a narrow approach, whatever that may mean. The exercise which has to be undertaken is to determine what the words mean. " ( 18 ) LORD. Halsbury L. C. cautioned against the error of preconceived notions of the interpreter, as to the intendment of the parties, colouring the interpretation of the terms of the agreement between them, in charles Robert Leader and another vs. George. F. Duffey and another, as under:". . . . . . . . . BUT it appears to me to be arguing in a vicious circle to begin by assuming an intention apart from the language of the instrument itself, and having made that fallacious assumption to bend the language in favour of the assumption so made". F. Duffey and another, as under:". . . . . . . . . BUT it appears to me to be arguing in a vicious circle to begin by assuming an intention apart from the language of the instrument itself, and having made that fallacious assumption to bend the language in favour of the assumption so made". ( 19 ) THE relationship, the relative obligations and rights and the status of the assessee and M/s. Balaji and Go, in relation to each other must thus be considered only qua the terms of the written agreement between them and the consequent legal consequences, including in the matter of liability to sales-tax must be given effect to by the Court, unless of course, the actual facts as apparent from the books of account or other material disclose the existence of a relationship different from that agreed upon by the written instrument. What then are the terms of the written agreement? ( 20 ) THE terms of the written contract between the parties as contained in the agreement dt. 10-9-87, construed as a whole, to the extent relevant and material for the purpose of the case, are to the following effect: (A) Both the parties are registered dealers under APGST and CST acts, as also licence holders under the Excise Act. (B) The assessee has requested m/s. Balaji and Co, to manufacture beedies on their behalf for the specified brands on commission basis due to labour problems and other practical difficulties encountered by the assessee resulting in inability to continue manufacture of beedies at nizamabad in respect of its brand names. (C) M/s. Balaji and Co, has accorded consent to manufacture the required quantity of beedies on commission basis and has accordingly been so manufacturing the beedies since 23-8-1985 onwards on commission basis and supplying the same to the assessee. (D) M/s. Balaji and Co, shall be responsible to manufacture and supply the beedies to the assessee in accordance with the orders placed from time to time, on a consolidated commission rate as agreed, on such terms, by the parties mutually. (E) The assessee shall supply tobacco, gunnies, labels, thread, paper and other packing material, on the basis of orders placed for the manufacture. (E) The assessee shall supply tobacco, gunnies, labels, thread, paper and other packing material, on the basis of orders placed for the manufacture. (F) M/s. Balaji and Co, shall be obligated to purchase the remaining raw material like beedi leaves, charcoal, maida and pay expenses such as Central Excise duty, beedi manufacturing wages and packing wages, etc. (G) M/s. Balaji and Co, shall also be obligated to pay the taxes, if any, on such purchase to the commercial Taxes Department under the State and Central Acts since and it is the manufacturer of beedies and a registered dealer in the State. The terms of the written agreement between the parties construed as a whole, as it must, clearly post a relationship whereby the second party M/s. Balaji and co. , is to supply beedies to the assessee after purchasing for itself, the raw material therefore, including beedi leaves. A peculiar feature of this contract is however that the assessee is to supply the other major ingredient i. e. , tobacco, apart from gunnies, labels, threads and paper, to the second party. The assessee is to pay a consolidated commission to M/s. Balaji and Co. , for the supply of beedies at a mutually agreed rate. The agreement categorically obligates the payment of commercial taxes on all the purchases made, payable under the Central and State Acts, by M/s. Balaji and Co. , as it is the manufacturer of beedies and the registered dealer in the State. ( 21 ) THE initial Assessing Authority, as seen from the order dated 29-3-1988, found on an examination of the books of account of the assessee that there are no beedi leaf purchases. The successor assessing authority who reopened the assessment held that: ". . . . . the assessee firm pay the value of beedi leaves to M/s. Balaji and company, Kisan Nagar, it amounts to purchase of beedi leaves and figure as last purchases have to pay tax on beedi leaves as per Item 18 of Schedule ii of A. P. G. S. T. Act, 1957" this authority also held that it is evident from the books of account maintained that the assessee firm supplied tobacco mixture etc. , to M/s. Balaji and Co. , who in turn hand over the specific brand of beedies to the assessee firm and collect labour charges, duty etc. , to M/s. Balaji and Co. , who in turn hand over the specific brand of beedies to the assessee firm and collect labour charges, duty etc. , and the value of beedi leaves, as is evident from L. F. Page 21 of the assessee. It is this finding viz. , that the accounts disclose. payment of specific amounts towards cost of be"edi leaves by the assessee to M/s. Balaji and Co. , that influenced the decision that the assessee is the last purchaser of beedi leaves in the State and therefore liable to tax.