Judgment :- 1. The appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessment period is for the year 1998-1999. The assessee while filing his return of turnover had claimed certain exemptions in respect of the purchases on goods which figured in Entry 3 of Fifth Schedule of the Act such as:- “3. All varieties of textiles namely, cotton, woolen or artificial silk including rayon or nylon whether manufactured in mills, power looms or in handloom and hosiery cloth in lengths (produced or manufactured in India) as described from time to time in Column 2 of the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.” And the total turnover attributable to such purchases was to the extent of 10,86,65,740/-for the period concerned. 2. The assessing officer concluded the assessment as per his assessment vide order dated 24.6.1999 u/s.12(2) of the Act and so far as this appeal is concerned, accepted the claim of the assessee regarding exemption in respect of its turnover relatable to the purchase of textile as one covered under Entry 3 of Schedule V of the Act and therefore, not getting into Entry No.7-A of Part ‘T’ of Second Schedule to the Act. 3. The Joint Commissioner in exercise of his powers u/s.21(2) of the Act proposed to revise this order on the premise that, when the assessee has not made good his claim for exemption as, he being a dealer in manufacturing of hosiery could have used for manufacturing purposes and might not have sold it as free flowing cloth and therefore, show cause notice dt.30.3e.2001 was issued to the assessee. The assessee responded to this notice reiterating that he is entitled for exemption etc. 4. The Joint Commissioner in terms of his order dated 24.7.2004 dropped the show cause notice being of the opinion that he was now convinced with the assessee having sold fabrics/textiles and as the show cause notice was merely on a hunch, that it might have been used in the manufacture of hosiery etc and opined that as the assessee had satisfied him that it has been sold as it is, no need to disturb the assessment order. 5. 5. However, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes being of the view that even this order of the Joint Commissioner was still erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, issued show cause notice on 6.10.2006 proposing a revision of this order on the ground that the assessee had even then not produced proof of payment of additional excise duty by the original manufacturer of the fabrics and therefore, while the assessee has not fully made good the conditions required to be made good under the exemption provision of Entry 3 of the Fifth schedule to the Act and in the absence the turn over will have to be necessarily assessed as relatable to Entry No.7-A of Part ‘T’ of Second Schedule to the Act. 6. The assessee responded to the show cause notice contending interalia that the show cause notice was bad not only for the reason that, what was sought to be revised is not an issue covered under an order passed by the Joint Commissioner and being beyond the period of four years it is virtually a revision of the original assessment order and therefore, not tenable, but also on the premise that the department cannot insist on proof of payment of additional duties excise in respect of the exemptions claimed under Entry 3 of second schedule of the Act; that such a view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of other dealers binds the Addl. Commissioner and therefore, also there is no scope for revising the order passed by the Joint Commissioner and requested to drop the proposed show cause notice. 7. However, the Addl. Commissioner rejected such contentions on the part of the assessee and proceeded to revise the order holding that, as the assessee had not made good his claim for exemption byway of producing the commensurate proof to indicate that additional duty of excise had, in fact, been paid by the manufacturer with whom purchases have been made etc. the turnover has to be necessarily brought to tax in terms of Entry 7A Part A of Second Schedule to the Act and therefore, set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, directed the Assessing officer to redo the assessment as per his order dated 16.9.2008. 8. It is aggrieved by this order the assessee is in appeal before this court. 9. 8. It is aggrieved by this order the assessee is in appeal before this court. 9. The assessee had earlier tried his hand to get over this order of the Addl. Commissioner by filing a writ petition No. 1255/09 before this Court. But, this Court having disposed of the petition permitted the assessee to avail of the provisions of the Section 25A of the Act for rectification and the assessee also having tried that, but the Commissioner having dismissed the application as per his order dated 23.9.2009 and now the assessee having become wise has approached this Court with the present Appeal u/s.24(1) of the Act. 10. The appeal having been admitted, the respondents having been put on notice are represented by Smt. S.Sujatha, learned Addl.Govt. Advocate. 11. We have heard Sri. B.G. Chidananda Urs, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. S.Sujatha, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 12. Mr. Urs raised two points which are urged before the Addl. Commissioner; one relating to the power for the exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Addl. Commissioner having been barred as it should be exercised within a period of four years in view of the provision of Section 22-A of the Act. Submission is that the Addl. Commissioner is not revising the order of the Joint Commissioner, but in the guise of revising the order of the Joint Commissioner, it has only revised the assessment order. 12.1. The question of proof of payment of additional excise duty by the manufacturer was never an issue before the Joint Commissioner, in terms of his order the subject matter of show cause notice issued by the Joint Commissioner was only with regard to the manner of disposal of the purchase o f cotton textiles etc. It is therefore urged that the show cause notice issued by the Addl. Commissioner on 6.10.2006 is one virtually to revise the assessment order dated 24.6.1999 and being beyond the period of four years is hit by statutory provisions referred to above. 12.2. It is therefore urged that the show cause notice issued by the Addl. Commissioner on 6.10.2006 is one virtually to revise the assessment order dated 24.6.1999 and being beyond the period of four years is hit by statutory provisions referred to above. 12.2. The second contention urged is that the Entry 3 of Fifth Schedule to the Act does not contemplate a dealer claiming exemption benefit under this entry required to produce proof of payment of additional excise duties and therefore, the Commissioner is clearly in error in denying the exemption on the premise that the dealer had failed to produce proof of payment of additional duties by the manufacturer to demonstrate that the purchased free flowing cloth by the dealer is one covered by Entry 3. 12.3. It is also pointed out by Mr. Urs that it is most unreasonable to expect a dealer to produce proof of payment of additional duties after six years and even otherwise it is not contemplated in the scheme of exemption as there is no guarantee that a dealer will always be purchasing exempted goods directly from the manufacturer, but the purchase can be from another dealer etc. Mr. Urs submits that the Additional Commissioner was wrong in taking the view that as the goods did not5 conform to the description as indicated in Entry 3 of Schedule V, as no such condition is stipulated against the goods as per the description in column 2 of schedule V to the Act and payment or otherwise of additional duties being not a issue either before the Joint Commissioner or even in the show cause notice issued by the Additional Commissioner denying the exemption to the dealer as per the order dated 16.9.2008 is clearly erroneous in law and not sustainable. 12.4 In support of his submissions Sri.Urs has relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax Vat-I Mumbai – vs – Kirloskar Oil Engine Ltd. – (2011) 46 VST 538 (Bom); 2. Collector of C.Ex. – vs – Decent Dyeing Co. – 1990(45) E.L.T.201 (S.C.). 13. However, Smt.Sujatha, learned Addl. 12.4 In support of his submissions Sri.Urs has relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax Vat-I Mumbai – vs – Kirloskar Oil Engine Ltd. – (2011) 46 VST 538 (Bom); 2. Collector of C.Ex. – vs – Decent Dyeing Co. – 1990(45) E.L.T.201 (S.C.). 13. However, Smt.Sujatha, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State has put up a very spirited reply pointing out that dealer claiming exemption in terms of Entry 3 of Fifth Schedule to the Act is put to strict proof of fulfillment of conditions stipulated therein that the turnover otherwise is a taxable turnover in terms of Entry No.7-A of Part ‘T’ of Second Schedule to the Act; that unless the dealer had made good to the hilt that the turnover qualifies for exemption in terms of Entry 3 of Fifth Schedule to the Act, he cannot as a matter of course assume or claim such an exemption; this requirement the dealer had not made good before anyone of the authorities, such as the Assessing Officer or the first Revisional Authority or the Second Revisional Authority; that the fabrics or the cotton textiles purchased by him, if are to be covered by Entry 3 of Schedule V to the Act, it should necessarily be as described in the schedule to the Excise Act and therefore, the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner to deny the exemption is perfectly valid, as even now the assessee has not made good the exemption in terms of Entry 3 of schedule V to the Act etc. 14. Having heard Sri. Urs, learned counsel for the appellant Smt.S.Sujatha, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and having perused the records and bestowed our attention to the submissions of the learned Counsel and in the wake of the decisions relied upon by Sri. Urs, the point that arise for our consideration is :- ‘Whether the order passed by the Additional Commissioner u/s.22-A of the Act is sustainable or calls for interference?’ 15. While the first question as to whether the question of payment of additional duty and production of proof or the same by the dealer was not an issue before the Joint commissioner nor decided by the first regional authority, but whether it could be forming part of an exemption claimed and if so, being an aspect of exemption, the Addl. While the first question as to whether the question of payment of additional duty and production of proof or the same by the dealer was not an issue before the Joint commissioner nor decided by the first regional authority, but whether it could be forming part of an exemption claimed and if so, being an aspect of exemption, the Addl. Commissioner could make it the subject matter of his revisional jurisdiction though the very aspect is not examined by the Joint Commissioner being a debatable point and as either view is possible, depending more on the facts and circumstances of a given case, we do not propose to examine the question in any detail on this aspect. 15.1 We do not propose to examine this question further as we find that the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner obviously proceeded on such premise, but the examination by the Commissioner being on the question relating to proof of payment of the additional duties of excise and it is only with this regard to this aspect, the show cause notice has been issued by the additional Commissioner and decided by him as we find that the issue of show cause notice and the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner to direct Assessing Authority to redo the assessment by denying the exemption in terms of Entry 3 of Schedule V to the Act involves a larger question of general applicability and the view on this aspect by the Commissioner cannot be sustained on perusal of the provisions of Entry 3 to Schedule V of the Act. 15.2 We say so for the reason that the conditions imposed for claiming exemption in no way contemplates a dealer providing proof of payment of additional duties of exemption by the manufacturer. 15.3 A proof of this nature is obviously not contemplated in the scheme of this Act. The exemption granted in respect of the items figuring in Entry 3 are not qualified by a condition that it should be purchased from a manufacturer. 15.3 A proof of this nature is obviously not contemplated in the scheme of this Act. The exemption granted in respect of the items figuring in Entry 3 are not qualified by a condition that it should be purchased from a manufacturer. 15.4 If as submitted by Sri.Urs, learned Counsel for the appellant, if a dealer has purchased such goods which otherwise figured in Entry 3 from a subsequent dealer who had in turn purchased it from a manufacturer, perhaps such a dealer may not be in a position to procure proof from a second or third dealer who might have purchased the goods and in turn selling it. Be that as it may, it is not a r3equirement stipulated in the Entry and therefore, we find the argument on behalf of the revenue to the effect that the dealer having never made good that his purchase turnover was one corresponding to the very description of the goods as in the schedule to the additional duties of the Excise Act in the absence of production of proof of payment of additional duty of Excise Act and it is not entitled for exemption and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is justified and to the sustained on such logic is not a tenable argument. 15.5 The Addl. Commissioner did not show causes notices proposing for revision either on the ground that the dealer had not made good the precise goods which he had purchased were covered under the schedule to the Excise Act or on the premise that they have not been sold as such, but utilized in manufacturing. Show Cause notice was only one confining to non-production of the proof of payment of additional duties and the order for denying the exemption is also on the same reason and therefore, the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner cannot be sustained. 16. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Addl. Commissioner dated 16.9.2008 is set aside and the assessment order is sustained. No order as to costs.