RAMASWAMI, J.

The petitioners are registered dealers under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In respect of their inter-State sales in cotton the gross turnover was determined, on the basis of the monthly returns filed by the petitioners, at Rs. 2, 10, 83, 570.68 and the taxable inter-State sales at Rs. 8, 54, 347.76, by the assessment order dated 17th July, 1961, under the Central Sales Tax Act, for the assessment year 1958-59 by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai. The taxable turnover was also held to be taxable at one per cent. On examination of the connected records, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai Division, noticed that the turnover assessed represented only the sale value of cotton despatched by the assessee from Madras State to mills in other States and in the gross turnover not assessed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, a sum of Rs. 72, 36, 997.30 represented sales by the petitioners to the mills inside and outside Madras State of cotton purchased by them from outside dealers during the inter-State movement of the cotton. This turnover of Rs. 72, 36, 997.30 is divided into two heads : (1) sales turnover to mills inside the State when the goods are on the inter-State journey for the period from 1st April, 1958, to 30th September, 1958 = Rs. 66, 88, 723.44; (2) sales turnover to mills inside and outside the State when the goods are on their inter-State journey from 1st October, 1958, to 31st March, 1959 = Rs. 5, 48, 273.86. In respect of these transactions the sales were effected by transfer of documents during the inter-State journey of goods. The assessees (petitioners) received the sale value of the goods from the buyers and made necessary endorsements for transfer of documents of title to the goods and these activities were carried on in Madras State when the goods were on their inter-State journey. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his power under section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, issued a notice on 9th October, 1964, proposing to revise the assessment and determine the taxable turnover by including the turnover in the sum of Rs. 72, 36, 997.30 taxable at one per cent. under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioners submitted their objections. After consideration of their objections, by his order dated 7th November, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner, Madurai Division, revised the turnover and refixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 80, 91, 345.06 by including Rs. 72, 36, 997.30 to the taxable turnover originally determined. The petitioners filed an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madurai. In the appeal, the Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons held that the sum of Rs. 66, 88, 723.44, representing the sales turnover to mills inside the State for the period from 1st April, 1958, to 30th September, 1958, was not liable to be taxed but that the sum of Rs. 5, 48, 273.86, which represented the sales turnover to mills inside and outside the State when the goods were on their inter-State journey for the period from 1st October, 1958, to 31st March, 1959, are liable to tax at 1 per cent.In this revision the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the special power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 is "subject to the provisions of this Act"(Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act) and one of such provisions is section 16(1)(b). Under that provision the assessment could not be revised after a period of five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. In this case, the year of assessment is 1958-59 and, therefore, the proceedings for revision should have been initiated on or before 31st March, 1964. Since, the notice proposing the revision was issued only on 7th October, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the relative scope of sections 16 and 32, we are unable to accept this argument of the learned counsel.

Section 16 deals with the turnover which has escaped assessment to tax. This section covers within its ambit even cases where in respect of a turnover the assessing authority has considered the liability to tax and wrongly excluded it from tax, whether on the ground of erroneous view of the nature of the transaction or on a wrong understanding of the provisions of the Act or for any other reason. This is the view taken by this court in Hasheeb & Co. v. State of Madras in view of certain decisions of the Supreme Court in Maharaj Kumar v. Income-tax Commissioner and Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar Taking this position as a jumping pad, the learned counsel for the petitioners wants to jump to the conclusion that when the Deputy Commissioner exercised his power under section 32 in respect of a turnover which could be termed as a turnover which has escaped assessment to tax, he was exercising the powers of an original authority and, therefore, all the limitations placed under section 16 would attach to his exercise of jurisdiction. The relative scope of sections 16 and 32 was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Hasheeb & Co. v. State of Madras and it was held therein :

"If section 32 is construed in this background we are clearly of the opinion that the power of revision of the Deputy Commissioner is a separate and independent power which can be exercised whenever he is of the opinion that the original assessing authority has committed any error of law or fact. We are unable to see any force in the contention that the mere fact that the assessing authority also has got a power to reconsider his decision by correcting his mistakes, assuming that he has got such a power, should be construed as curtailing or negativing the powers of revision expressly conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner."

The learned Judges also noted that if the contention that where section 16 applies, section 32 cannot be invoked is to be accepted, it would be impossible to conceive of any case to which section 32 would be attracted. The learned Judges, therefore, concluded that the power of revision under section 32 could be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner to correct errors committed by the assessing authority in his order of assessment, irrespective of the question as to whether the said errors could also be corrected by the assessing authority and that its exercise could not be controlled by any power which may inhere in the assessing authority under section 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners was prepared to assume this position, but still contended that the limitation that the determination of the escaped turnover was to be within a period of five years from the year of assessment, would be applicable to the exercise of power under section 32. We are of opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 32 states that the Deputy Commissioner shall not pass any order under sub-section (1) of that section, if more than four years have expired after the passing of the assessment order which was sought to be revised under section 32. We can conceive of a case where the period of four years lapses before the period of five years referred to under section 16(1). Is it to be taken in such a situation that the Deputy Commissioner will have a further extended time under section 16. If the limitation under section 16 were to apply to the exercise of power under section 32, clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 32 is not necessary and could not also be enforced. In our view, the power of the original authority under section 16 and that of the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 are independent powers and each is controlled only by the respective sections. When exercising the power under section 32, the Deputy Commissioner is not assessing or reassessing any escaped turnover, but revises the order of the assessing authority after examining the order passed or the proceedings recorded. It may also be noted that an order under section 16(1) and (2) itself could be revised under section 32 by the Deputy Commissioner.The learned counsel for the petitioners then relied on the decision in Velayutha Raja v. Board of Revenue (C.T.)