JUDGMENT
Somnath Iyer, J.
1. In respect of the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, when the Deputy Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction suo motu under section 21 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, he reached the conclusion that the turnover in respect of cotton yarn between the period 1st April, 1958, and 30th September, 1958, could not be subjected to tax in view of the declaration of the law, by this Court, in Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 583.) v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 597.) Karnatak Coffee Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, Davanagere ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 658.) and Mysore Silk House v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 597.) and the ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 231.).
2. But the Deputy Commissioner erroneously restricted the rectification which he made only to the periods antecedent to 1st October, 1958. It is clear from the decision of this Court in Govindaraju Chetty v. Commercial Tax Officer([1968] 22 S.T.C. 46; 10 L.R. 605.) that in the cases referred to above, the clear enunciation is that notwithstanding the amendment of section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the provision of section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act remains unaffected.
3. The Sales Tax Tribunal which did not have any doubt that that was the true position, refused to make the modification of the order made by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that in an appeal preferred under section 22 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act the Appellate Tribunal could not allow the petitioner to question the order made by the Deputy Commissioner in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 21 of the Act.
4. This view taken by the Tribunal is clearly mistaken. When the Deputy Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction under section 21, his duty was to make a rectification of the order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer. When revisional jurisdiction which has to be exercised for that purpose is so exercised, the whole matter is at large, and it becomes the duty of the revising authority to substitute for the wrong order made by the Commercial Tax Officer an order which should conform to the statutory provisions.
5. Under section 22 of the Sales Tax Act, an appeal lies to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal from every order made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 21, by a person who objects to it. The petitioner had secured some relief from the Deputy Commissioner when he exercised his revisional jurisdiction. But he did not secure the whole of the relief to which he was entitled under the law. He had, therefore, a right to object to that part of the order made by the Deputy Commissioner which did not make available to him the relief to which he was entitled. So from that part of the order to which he could rightly object, he had the right to prefer an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and when he preferred that appeal the Tribunal could not decline jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner had not preferred an appeal from the order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer which was subjected to rectification in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
6. The relief which is made available to a dealer in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 21 is not a favour shown to him. That revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised for a higher purpose and that purpose is the displacement of a wrong order by a right one and in that view of the matter, an objection to the imperfect exercise of revisional jurisdiction could be made the subject-matter of an appeal under section 22.
7. So, we allow this revision petition and we direct the Commercial Tax Officer to so modify his order of assessment that the petitioner stands exempted from the payment of tax in respect of all the sales of cotton yam during the period between 1st April, 1958, and 31st March, 1959.
8. In the circumstances, no costs.
9. Petition allowed.