ORDER : (A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.) As the impugned order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in OT. Revision No.5 of 2023 relies on the impugned order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in OT.Revision No.6 of 2023, the two OT.Revision petitions are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these OT. Revision petitions are as follows: The revision petitioner in both these OT. Revision petitions is an assessee on the rolls of the State Tax Office, Fourth Circle, Thrissur. The assessment of the petitioner to tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ('the KVAT Act') for the assessment year 2012-2013 was initially completed by an assessment order dated 05.06.2014. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority on the issue of claim for sales returns, the First Appellate Authority, by an order dated 01.09.2015, modified the assessment order in relation to the said issue and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for a fresh consideration of the said issue. The modified order of the Assessing Authority on the issue of sales return was passed on 20.10.2016, where the Assessing Authority accepted the claim of the assessee. The said modified order was, however, subjected to a suo motu revision at the hands of the Joint Commissioner, who, after hearing the assessee cancelled the order dated 20.10.2016 by an order dated 26.08.2020. The Assessing Authority was, thereafter, directed to complete the fresh assessment based on the directions of the Joint Commissioner in the order dated 26.08.2020. No modified order was however passed by the Assessing Authority pursuant to the directions of the Joint Commissioner, presumably because the petitioner assessee had preferred a further revision petition before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes impugning the order dated 26.08.2020 of the Joint Commissioner. 3. In OT. Revision No.6 of 2023, the impugned order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was passed in proceedings that emanated from an order dated 18.12.2017 of the Assessing Authority, which had assessed the petitioner to escaped turnover pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, after the original order of assessment dated 05.06.2014 had been passed in relation to the petitioner. Against the order dated 18.12.2017, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who had, by an order dated 22.06.2018, modified the order dated 18.12.2017 passed under Section 25(1). Even before a modified order could be passed by the Assessing authority based on the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 22.06.2018, suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 56 of the KVAT Act for revising the order dated 18.12.2017 passed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Although the petitioner had pointed out to the Deputy Commissioner that the proceedings under Section 56 could not be initiated when an appeal had already been filed by the petitioner against the order that was sought to be revised (Order dated 18.12.2017) and the Appellate Authority had passed orders in the said appeal, the Deputy Commissioner erroneously assumed that inasmuch as the order dated 18.12.2017 was itself a consequential order passed at the instance of the High Court in proceedings that had been preferred before High Court by the petitioner assessee, a suo motu revision of the said order could be effected. This order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10.01.2020, cancelling the order dated 18.12.2017 at the point in time when an appeal preferred by the petitioner assessee against the said order had already been decided by the Appellate Authority on 22.06.2018, was obviously in contravention of the provisions of Section 56 (2) (b) of the KVAT Act more so when the provisions of Section 56 (3) of the Act had no application to the facts of the case. This aspect however was not taken note of by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who passed the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 in OT. Revision No.6 of 2023. As a matter of fact, the impugned order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clearly reveals that there was a patent non-application of mind by the said authority to the issue while disposing the revision preferred by the petitioner before the said authority. Revision No.6 of 2023. As a matter of fact, the impugned order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clearly reveals that there was a patent non-application of mind by the said authority to the issue while disposing the revision preferred by the petitioner before the said authority. At any rate, since the legal position with regard to the initiation of suo motu proceedings under Section 56, under circumstances where the order sought to be revised has been the subject matter of an appeal before the Appellate Authority on the very issue that was sought to be revised, is clear from the express provisions of the statute itself, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 30.03.2021 in OT. Revision No.6 of 2023 cannot be legally sustained. We, therefore, allow the said OT. Revision by setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and directing the Assessing Authority to pass a consequential order based on the order dated 22.06.2018 of the First Appellate Authority on the issue of escaped turnover, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. As regards OT.Revision No.5 of 2023, as already noticed above, the impugned order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes chose to follow the order dated 30.03.2021 of the earlier Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, notwithstanding the fact that the said order of the earlier Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had no relevance or bearing to the issue that had come up before the subsequent Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in revision against an order of the Joint Commissioner dated 26.08.2020. The order dated 26.08.2020 of the Joint Commissioner had cancelled the order dated 20.10.2016 of the Assessing Authority, which was in fact a modified order passed by the said authority based on the directions contained in the order dated 01.09.2015 of the First Appellate Authority on the issue of sales returns. While there was no legal impediment, as in the case of the orders passed in OT.Revision No.6 of 2023, for the Joint Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceedings against the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Assessing Authority, the fact remains that the issue canvassed by the petitioner in the revision preferred against the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner was not considered on merits by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 17.03.2022 of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that is impugned in OT.Revision No.5 of 2023 and direct the second revision authority under the KVAT Act to consider the revision petition preferred by the petitioner afresh, after hearing the petitioner, and pass orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The OT.Revision petitions are thus disposed as above.