JUDGMENT K. L. MANJUNATH, J. - Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax under section 22A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated December 28, 2006, the assessee has preferred this appeal. The appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the respondent was legally justified in rejecting the appellant's contention that its entire turnover being liable to tax under section 5B, no part of its turnover is liable to tax under section 6B of the Act ? (ii) Whether the respondent is justified in considering the order of the authority dated March 31, 2006 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue warranting interference in proceedings under section 22A of the Sales Tax Act ? We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The facts leading to this case are as follows : The assessee is a works contractor. He sought a clarification in regard to his liability to pay resale tax under section 22A(2) of the Act from the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings (hereinafter referred to as "Advance Ruling Authority"). The Advance Ruling Authority clarified that the assessee is liable to pay resale tax and aggrieved by the order of clarification, the assessee has filed an appeal before this court in S.T.A. No. 58 of 2003, which appeal came to be allowed on August 25, 2005 and the matter was remanded to the Advance Ruling Authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the provisions to section 6B of the Act. In terms of the order of this court, the Advance Ruling Authority reconsidered the matter and by its order dated March 31, 2006 held that the assessee is not liable to pay resale tax on the turnover of goods involved in the execution of works contract which are purchased from local, outside, registered and unregistered dealers. The Commissioner having found that the finding of the Advance Ruling Authority is prejudicial to the interest of the State revenue, suo motu initiated proceedings under section 22A(2) of the Act. The Commissioner after hearing the assessee held that the order of the Advance Ruling Authority is bad in law and the assessee is liable to pay resale tax under section 6B of the Act. Challenging the order of the Commissioner, the present appeal is filed. The Commissioner after hearing the assessee held that the order of the Advance Ruling Authority is bad in law and the assessee is liable to pay resale tax under section 6B of the Act. Challenging the order of the Commissioner, the present appeal is filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the order of the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes is contrary to proviso (x) to section 6B of the Act. Further, taking us through the speech of the Finance Minister on the floor of the Assembly, he contends that levy of resale tax and benefit given under the proviso is a prelude to the value added tax and that second and subsequent sales are exempted from resale tax. Therefore, he contends that the Commissioner has committed a serious error in not considering the idea behind introducing resale tax under section 6B of the Act by the State and that the Advance Ruling Authority was justified in considering proviso (x) to section 6B of the Act. Per contra, the learned Government advocate submits that the Commissioner has considered proviso (x) to section 6B of the Act. Therefore, there is nothing for this court to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner and exercising his suo motu revisional power. After hearing the parties when we directed the learned Government advocate to show how proviso (x) to section 6B of the Act has been properly considered by the Commissioner, he fairly accedes that it has to be reconsidered by the Commissioner in the light of the said proviso. Therefore, he requests this court to set aside the order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. In view of the submissions of the learned Government advocate and in the light of the speech of the Minister for Finance on the floor of the Assembly while introducing resale tax, we are of the view that the matter has to be reconsidered by the Commissioner afresh in the light of proviso (x) to section 6B of the Act and the object of introducing resale tax by the State under section 6B of the Act as stated by the Finance Minister on the floor of the Assembly. Accordingly, without answering the questions of law, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated December 28, 2006 passed under section 22A(2) of the Act is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Commissioner is directed to reconsider the matter afresh by giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee within a period of three months from today.