JUDGMENT K. L. Manjunath - The legality and correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated August 22, 2006 in case Nos. KST/SMR. 3, 4 and 5/1990-91, is called in question in this appeal. The assessee is a dealer in spices. For the assessment year 1987-88, he submitted the returns. Based on the returns, the assessment was completed by the assessing officer exercising powers under section 22A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("the Act", for short). The Commissioner issued a notice on December 5, 1992, which notice was challenged by the assessee by filing a writ petition before this court in W.P. No. 39461-463 of 1992 and an order was passed on March 22, 2005 by this court. Based on the same, the Commissioner proceeded with the matter and found that the black pepper worth Rs. 77,35,310 had been purchased by the assessee from local unregistered dealer and liable for purchase tax at five per cent and turnover tax at 1.5 per cent. Accordingly, the revision petition was disposed of holding that the assessee has to pay the tax as stated above. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed. Two questions are raised before this court, which are hereunder :- (1) Whether the Commissioner is justified in invoking section 22A(2) of the Act, when such a revisional power is also vested with the Joint Commissioner. (2) Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that the black pepper purchased by the appellant from the unregistered dealer from outside the State of Karnataka and purchases made within the State of Karnataka ? We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant, has brought our attention to the provisions of section 21 and also section 22A(1) of the Act, which reads as under : "21. Revisional powers of (...) Joint Commissioners. - (1) ... (2) The Joint Commissioner may of his own motion call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of this Act by (any officer not above the rank of a Deputy Commissioner) for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceeding insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. (3) In relation to an order of assessment passed under this Act, the power under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be exercisable only within a period of four years from the date on which the order was passed. (4) No order shall be passed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) enhancing any assessment, unless an opportunity has been given to the assessee to show cause against the proposed enhancement. (5) The power under this section shall not be exercisable in respect of matters subjected to appeal under section 20. (6) Every order passed in revision under this section shall subject to the provisions of sections 22 to 24 and 25A be final. 22A. Revisional powers of (Additional Commissioner) and Commissioner. - (1) The Additional Commissioner may on his own motion call for and examine the record of any proceeding under section 20 or section 21 of this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by any officer who is not above the rank of a (Joint Commissioner), is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, if necessary, stay the operation of such order for such period as he deems fit and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment." Relying on the said provision, he contends that on account of revisional powers exercised by the Commissioner, the assessee had to file an appeal. If such revisional power had been exercised by the Joint Commissioner under section 21 of the Act, is less, since the assessee was entitled to file an appeal not against an order passed by the Joint Commissioner under section 21 of the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and thereafter to approach this court in sales tax revision petition. According to him, when revisional power was given to the Joint Commissioner, there was no need for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to invoke section 22A of the Act and revise the order of assessment. According to him, when revisional power was given to the Joint Commissioner, there was no need for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to invoke section 22A of the Act and revise the order of assessment. According to him, if the Joint Commissioner has failed to exercise his powers under section 21 of the Act, it is for the Commissioner to direct the Joint Commissioner to exercise powers under section 21 of the Act and reopen the proceedings. He further contends that when accounts were produced before the assessing officer, the Commissioner without considering the actual documents produced by the assessee has wrongly come to the conclusion that the black pepper worth Rs. 77,35,310 has been purchased by the assessee from the local dealers within the State, even though such purchases were made by the assessee from the unregistered dealers outside the Karnataka. According to him, the Commissioner has committed a serious error in passing the order based on the calculation sheet maintained by the assessing officer. According to him, the order passed by the revisional authority is on the face of record is illegal and not based on proper appreciation of the documents produced by the assessee before the assessing officer. In the circumstances, he requests the courts to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 22A of the Act and allow the appeal. He further contends that the black pepper purchased by the assessee has been exported. Therefore, the question of reopening the same does not arise for consideration. Per contra, the Government Pleader submits that the Commissioner is justified in exercising his powers vested under section 22A of the Act. According to him, the revisional powers vested under the Act, can be exercised either by the Joint Commissioner or by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which can be done by both the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 21(1) of the Act and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 22A of the Act. According to him, the exercise of power under section 22A of the Act, by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes cannot be find fault with. According to him, if the revisional powers had been exercised by the Joint Commissioner under section 21(1) of the Act, no doubt, the assessee has a remedy of appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and thereafter, by way of revision before this court. According to him, if the revisional powers had been exercised by the Joint Commissioner under section 21(1) of the Act, no doubt, the assessee has a remedy of appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and thereafter, by way of revision before this court. If such a power is exercised by the Commissioner under section 22A of the Act, the assessee has a recourse to file an appeal before this court. Therefore, he contends that the power exercised under section 22A of the Act has not been questioned by the assessee. He further contends that, so far as the black pepper purchased by the assessee is concerned, the Commissioner is justified in passing the order by relying upon the note sheet maintained by the assessing officer, who had prepared such notes based on the documents produced by the assessee at the time of assessment. He further submits that based on the documents produced by the assessee the assessing officer had prepared such notes. In the circumstances, he requests the court to dismiss the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that point No. 1 canvassed by Mr. Gandhi has to be negatived, as he does not dispute the concurrent powers vested under the Act to revise the order of assessment both by the Joint Commissioner and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. When such powers are granted to two officers, it is open for any one of the officers to revise the order of assessment. However, it is found that the order of the assessment is prejudicial to the interest of the State. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, virus under section 22A of the Act, is not questioned by the assessee herein, and hence, it is difficult for us to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the event, the Joint Commissioner has failed to exercise his revisional powers under section 21 of the Act, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has to direct the Joint Commissioner to exercise his powers under section 21 of the Act. As per section 21 as well as 22A of the Act, revisional powers can be exercised by both the authorities within a period of four years. As per section 21 as well as 22A of the Act, revisional powers can be exercised by both the authorities within a period of four years. When limitation is stipulated as four years, it is not for the Commissioner to direct the Joint Commissioner how he has to exercise his revisional power, when such power is vested in him under section 22A of the Act. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that point No. 1 has to be answered against the assessee by holding that both the Joint Commissioner as well as the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes can exercise their powers under different provisions of law. So far as purchase of black pepper is concerned, the order of the Commissioner is mainly based on the note sheet maintained by the assessing officer while passing the order of assessment. Based on such note, the revisional authorities are not expected to reverse the findings of the assessing officer. It is for the assessing officer as well as the revisional authorities to find out whether the black pepper purchased by the assessee from the unregistered dealers from local or inter-State based on the accounts maintained and other documents. It is a question of fact, which has to be ascertained based on the documentary evidence and on surmise, the revisional authorities cannot take a different view and substitute the order of assessing officer. As this question is also not considered by the assessing officer, we are of the view that the matter has to be remanded to the assessing officer to give proper finding. Accordingly, the orders of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, so also the assessing officer are to be set aside so far as this point alone is concerned. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by answering the question of law and remanding the matter to the assessing officer to give his finding in regard to purchase of black pepper worth Rs. 77,35,310 is either from the local unregistered dealer or from the unregistered dealer outside the Karnataka State. Parties to bear their costs.