Judgment :- RamachandranNair, J. 1. Revision is filed against the order of the Tribunal confirming suo moto revisional order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 35 of the KGST Act. The petitioner’s sales tax assessment for 1996-97 was originally completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.1.2001. However, after completion of the assessment, the Sales Tax Officer revised rime file from the Intelligence Officer, Ernakulam, which disclosed that for tax evasion practiced the petitioner was subject to a penalty of Rs.2.45 lakhs for the very same year. However, by this time, the time for reopening assessment based on the findings on evasion of tax in the Crime file was over for the Assessing Officer under Section 19(1) of the KGST Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer forwarded the assessment file with the Crime file to the Deputy Commissioner, who after following the procedure prescribed issued proceedings under Section 35(1) of the Act setting aside the assessment with direction to the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment to bring to tax, turnover, if any, escaped assessment based on the findings and data available in the Crime file for the very same year. The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order before the Tribunal by raising grounds of limitation and violation of natural justice. However, Tribunal dismissed the appeal, against which this revision is filed under Section 41 of the KGST Act read with Rule 41(1) of the KGST Rules. We have heard Adv. Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader of the respondent. 2. The main ground raised bythe petitioner before the Tribunal as well as before us is limitation for ordering revision of assessment to bring to tax escaped turnover. The Deputy Commissioner issued the order on 12.1.2005 and the assessment set aside by him for revision was dated 31.1.2001. Section 35(2)(c) of the KGFST Act provides that the Deputy Commissioner can revise any order passed by a subordinate authority other than an appellate authority, within four years from the date of the order. Going by the limitation provided under Section 35(2) (c), the Deputy Commissioner’s order directing revision of assessment based on the Crime case booked against the petitioner which led to penalty is within the statutory period of limitation. Going by the limitation provided under Section 35(2) (c), the Deputy Commissioner’s order directing revision of assessment based on the Crime case booked against the petitioner which led to penalty is within the statutory period of limitation. However, petitioner’s case is that going by the nature of order of the Deputy Commissioner which is a direction to the Assessing Officer to bring to tax escaped turnover, limitation should have been considered with reference to the limitation provided under Section 19(1) of the KGST Act, which gives five years’ time from the end of the relevant year to the Assessing Officer to revise assessment for bringing to tax escaped turnover or turnover assessed at a rate lower than the rate applicable, by himself. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on decision of the Supreme Court in BOMBAY AMMONIA (P) LTD. Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU reported in 37 STC 517 wherein the Supreme Court held that limitation under Section 32 of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act has to be reckoned with reference to other provision of the Act and so much so, escaped turnover has to be brought to tax only within the period of limitation provided to the Assessing Officer under the Act. The specific case of counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of the Tamilnadu Act in this regard are similar to Section 35 of the KGST Act and so much so, the decision of the Supreme Court squarely applies here. Government Pleader appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that this is the first time any dealer is raising the contention that the limitation for revision applicable to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 is not the specific limitation provided therein, but the limitation applicable to the Assessing Officer under Section 19(1) of the Act. 3. After hearing both sides, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that limitation for revision of assessment under Section 35 is not the one provided under the very same Section. Since the controversy is on scope of Section 35 and Section 19(1), we extract hereunder the said Sections: “S.19. 3. After hearing both sides, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that limitation for revision of assessment under Section 35 is not the one provided under the very same Section. Since the controversy is on scope of Section 35 and Section 19(1), we extract hereunder the said Sections: “S.19. Assessment of escaped turnover:- (1) Where for any reason the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax in any year or has been under-assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable or any deduction has been wrongly made therefrom, the assessing authority, may, at any time within fiver years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, proceed to determine to the best of its judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment to tax or has been under-assessed or has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable or the deduction that has been wrongly made and assess the tax payable on such turnover after issuing a notice on the dealer and after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary.” S.35. Powers of revision of the Deputy Commissioner suo motu:- The Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion, call for and examine any order passed or proceedings recorded under this Act by any officer or authority subordinate to him other than an Appellate A Commissioner which in his opinion is prejudicial to revenue and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit. (2) The Deputy Commissioner shall not pass any order under sub-section (1) if, -- (a) the time for appeal against the order has not expired; (b) the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal or of a revision in the High Court; or (c) more than five years have expired after the passing of the order referred to therein. ………………” It is the settled position by a series of decisions of this court that turnover escaped from assessment or turnover of any goods assessed at less than the rate applicable could be made up not only in a reassessment authorized to be completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 19(1), but also though a proceedings to be initiated by the Deputy Commission under Section 35 of the Act. In other words, the settled position of law is that tax evasion could be prevented though reassessment made either by the Assessing Officer himself or under direction of a higher authority like the Deputy Commissioner who is given supervisory powers under Section 35 of the Act. Obviously under Section 35 the Deputy Commissioner interferes with an order of a subordinate officer only when he is satisfied that such order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Wherever turnover has escaped assessment or any turnover is assessed at lower than the rate of tax applicable, such orders leading to evasion of tax are orders prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which is collection of tax for the State. 4. So far as scheme of limitation is concerned, the Assessing Officer is vested with five years time from the end of the year to revise an assessment already issued by him with a view to bring to tax escaped turnover or turnover assessed at lesser than the rate of tax applicable. The power vested in the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 is a supervisory power whereunder he is required to scrutinise proceedings issued by subordinate authorities functioning within his jurisdiction and the statute under Section 35(2)(c) gives the Deputy Commissioner four years time to scrutinize proceedings and the assessment orders issued by the subordinate officers and to make the correction within the period provided therein. The Assessing Officer always can pass the assessment order within the period of limitation provided under Section 17(6). However, if he awaits for completion of regular assessment till the last date i.e. within four years from the relevant year, then he gets only one year to revise an assessment under Section 19(1). The Assessing Officer always can pass the assessment order within the period of limitation provided under Section 17(6). However, if he awaits for completion of regular assessment till the last date i.e. within four years from the relevant year, then he gets only one year to revise an assessment under Section 19(1). The Legislature has taken into account situations like Assessing Officer committing mistakes or errors in assessment which he himself may not find out and also situations where he may even find out the mistake beyond the period of limitation given to him under Section 19(1) to correct omission or mistake through revision of assessment. It is to correct such omissions or mistakes committed by the Assessing Officer and on account of his incapacity or inability to revise the assessment by himself a higher authority like Deputy Commissioner is given powers under Section 35 to order revision of assessment or any proceeding found prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Deputy Commissioner is given time upto 4 years under Section 35(2)(c) to correct mistakes or omission in assessments or other proceedings issued prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Government Pleader pointed out that a Deputy Commissioner is controlling one Revenue District and several Assessing Officers at different centres are subject to his jurisdiction. Therefore, according to him, four years time is consciously provided by the Legislature for him to have the assessments of all the subordinate officers examined by him and if required, to make correction to avoided loss of revenue. According to the Government Pleader, limitation provided under Section 19(1)for revision of assessmn3t by the Assessing Officer and the limitation provided to the Deputy Commissioner are entirely different, though both authorities exercise the powers to prevent evasion of tax. The contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner should exercise powers subject to other provisions means that he has to abide by the limitation provided under Section 19 (1), if the proceedings initiated under Section 35 is one for bringing to tax escaped turnover or turnover assessed at less than the rate applicable. We are unable to accept this contention because when the statute authorises an act to be done by an authority within the time specifically provided therein, he is free to exercise such powers within such time. We are unable to accept this contention because when the statute authorises an act to be done by an authority within the time specifically provided therein, he is free to exercise such powers within such time. In this case admittedly the Deputy Commissioner set aside the original assessment for revision by the Assessing Officer for bringing to tax escaped turnover based on the Crime file within four years from the date of order passed by the Assessing Officer as is stated above. If the petitioner’s contention that limitation applicable to the Deputy Commissioner is the very same limitation applicable to the Assessing Officer under Section 19(1) is accepted, then the provision itself will become redundant and the Deputy Commissioner can be deprived of his authority by the Assessing Officer delaying the assessment upto the maximum period provided for completion of assessment under Section 17(6) of the Act. The very purpose of providing limitation under Section 35(2)(c) to the Deputy Commissioner with effect from the date on which the order or proceeding to be revised is passed is to give him sufficient opportunity to scruitinise the order and take appropriate action to revise the same in case it is found prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. On the other hand, limitation under Section 19(1) is the limitation provided to the original authority i.e. the Assessing Officer, which is with reference to the end of the relevant assessment year concerned. So much so, we do not find any justification to hold that the limitation expressly provided to the Deputy commissioner under Section 35(2)9c) to revise an order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is not applicable for the purpose of bringing to tax escaped turnover. The scope of limitation of the Deputy Commissioner has to be considered with reference to sub-section (2A) of Section 35 which provides for a longer period of limitation for revising orders that have been subject matter of appeal or revision. The scope of limitation of the Deputy Commissioner has to be considered with reference to sub-section (2A) of Section 35 which provides for a longer period of limitation for revising orders that have been subject matter of appeal or revision. Even though Section 35(2)(b) prohibits the Deputy Commissioner from revising an order which has been subject matter of appeal or even revision to the High Court, an exception is provided in sub-section (2A) of Section 35 with longer period of limitation which entitles the Deputy Commissioner even to revise an order which has been subject matter of appeal or revision to the High Court on any matter other than what is decided in such appeal or revision within one year from the date of the order in appeal or revision which may be beyond the four years limitation provided under sub-section(2c). So much so, we feel the scheme of limitation for revision of assessment under Section 19(1) by the Assessing Officer and by the Deputy Commissioner to order revision of assessment under Section 35 are entirely different and therefore, the petitioner’s contention that limitation for making turnover escaping assessment applicable to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 is not the one provided therein, but the limitation provided to the Assessing Officer under Section 19(1) is against the legislative scheme. We, therefore, reject this contention. 5. The next contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner passed the order under Section 35 without issuing notice and without giving opportunity to the petitioner which is the mandatory requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 35, admittedly the petitioner’s office was closed and, therefore, notice was served through affixture. The petitioner’s contention is that his residential address was known to the department and so much so, notice should hve been sent to him in the home address. However, petitioner has no case that he has informed closure of business and intimated residential address. There is nothing to indicate that the Deputy Commissioner has taken note of closure of business and that is obviously the reason why notice was sent to the business place and on failure to serve, the same was affixed in the business place. In order to consider petitioner’s grievance, we have gone through the order of the Deputy Commissioner. There is nothing to indicate that the Deputy Commissioner has taken note of closure of business and that is obviously the reason why notice was sent to the business place and on failure to serve, the same was affixed in the business place. In order to consider petitioner’s grievance, we have gone through the order of the Deputy Commissioner. All what the Deputy Commissioner has stated is that the assessment requires re-examination because at the time of passing the assessment order the Assessing Officer was unaware of the Crime File which discloses evasion of tax by the petitioner during the year leading to levy of penalty of Rs.2.4 lakhs. The Deputy Commissioner has made an open remand directing the Assessing Officer to examine whether is escapement of turnover and if so, to make assessment. It was absolutely open to the petitioner to demonstrate before the Assessing Officer that there has been no escapement of turnover. So much so, on merits we do not notice any finding by the Deputy Commissioner against the petitioner as the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment after giving full opportunity to the petitioner. The question now to be considered is whether there is denial of opportunity to file objection and if so, whether the order should be cancelled on that ground. In order to consider this question, we have to examine what could be the difference if petitioner filed objection before the Deputy Commissioner. If giving an opportunity would have led to an order favourable to the petitioner, certainly the order ha to be cancelled if it is passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner. However, in the peculiar facts of this case what we notice is that the whole procedure was initiated and completed by the Deputy Commissioner only because of receipt of C rime File from the Intelligence Officer which discloses evasion of tax and consequent levy of penalty on the petitioner which was not known to the Assessing Officer at the time of completion of original assessment. So much so, on our view, even if opportunity was availed by the petitioner, the petitioner could not have denied the penalty proceedings against him revealed by the Crime File and the Deputy Commissioner’s order could not have been any different than what he has passed i.e. directing the Officer to consider turnover escapement, if any, and to assess the same after giving opportunity to the petitioner. In fact, the effective opportunity against reassessment before Assessing Officer is still available to the petitioner. So much so, we do not find any justification to interfere with the Tribunal’s order confirming the Deputy Commissioner’s order. S.T. Revision case is consequently dismissed.