His companytention, inter alia, was that the Deputy Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to proceed in the matter under Section 15 1 i and he companyld proceed only under Rule 33 of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950.
The respondent took the matter in appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum.
In response to the numberice the respondent submitted the objections on November 2, 1963.
804 of 1967 may alone be stated.
The respondent filed a tax revision petition before the High Court which was allowed by the High Court fallowing a decision given by it in Ninan v. State of Kerala 1965 K.L.J. 819.
Deputy Commissioner overruled these companytentions and revised the assessment by including an additional turnover of Rs.
was also companytended that for the aforesaid reason the proceedings proposed by the Deputy Commissioner were barred by limitation under that rule.
The respondent was assessed under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 Act 11 of 1125 State of Kerala , hereinafter called the Act, for the year 1958 59 by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, First Circle, Alleppey, by his order dated November 13, 1959.
Subsequently the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax, South Zone, Quilon, issued a numberice dated October 29, 1963, to the respondent under Section 15 1 i of the Act proposing to revise the assessment on the ground that the assessing authority had companymitted a mistake in companyputing the assessable turnover to the extent of Rs.
17,000.
C. Shah, J. These two appeals by certificate from the judgment of the Kerala High Court involve a companymon question of law and will stand disposed of by this judgment.
The facts in C.A. No.
