Ramachandra Rao, J.
1. All these tax revision cases raise common questions and hence they are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. As the points raised in these revision cases are similar, it is sufficient to refer to the facts in one case, i. e., T. R. C. No. 9 of 1974. The petitioners herein are registered dealers in paddy and rice. For the assessment year 1964-65, the turnover of the petitioners under the Central Sales Tax Act was determined by the Commercial Tax Officer at Rs. 6,11,754.27. The said turnover was assessed to tax at 2 per cent under the Central Sales Tax Act. This turnover included sales of paddy in the course of inter-State trade amounting to Rs. 6,08,979.60. Against the said order, the petitioners went up in appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, who, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons  16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.), set aside the assessment on the inter-State sales of paddy on the ground that paddy not being taxable at any point of sale under the State Act, no tax could be levied under the Central Sales Tax Act by virtue of Section 9(3) of the Central Act as it then stood. The excess tax paid was refunded to the petitioners.
3. On 9th June, 1969, the Central Sales Tax Act was amended by the amending Act (Act No. 28 of 1969). The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kurnool, issued notices to the petitioners on 30th March, 1970, to show cause why the assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner should not be revised. The petitioners objected to the revision of the assessment. But the Deputy Commissioner overruled the objections and revised the appellate order and set aside the relief granted by the Appellate Commissioner and restored the original assessment order. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was made on 29th April, 1970.
4. The petitioners then carried the matter in appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal contending that the Deputy Commissioner, while passing the order under Section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) read with Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him, that he must be deemed to have exercised the powers of the original assessing authority and that such a power could not be exercised beyond the period prescribed in Section 14 of the Act. But this objection was overruled by the Tribunal holding that the order of the Deputy Commissioner did not amount to an order of fresh assessment but only an order falling within the powers of revision conferred by Section 20(2) of the Act, read with Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the cases of other petitioners in the other tax revision cases, similar objections were overruled by the Tribunal.
5. In these revision cases, two contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioners. Firstly, that the order of the Deputy Commissioner amounts to reassessment or fresh assessment.
6. This submission is devoid of any force. What the Deputy Commissioner exercised was only a power of revision under Section 20(2) of the Act. It cannot be said that the exercise of revisional power would amount to reassessment or a fresh assessment. What the Deputy Commissioner did in exercise of the revisional power was only to set aside the appellate order and restore the original order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer. The assessment was already made by the original authority but it was set aside by the appellate authority according to the law in force at the time of passing of the appellate order. Subsequently, by reason of the Amendment Act (Act No. 28 of 1969), the exemption granted by the appellate authority was found to be not valid and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of the revisional power, rectified the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the original authority. It is not a case where there is any determination of the turnover afresh by the Deputy Commissioner as the original authority. Therefore the first contention has to be rejected.
7. The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioners in T. R. C. Nos. 9 to 11 of 1974 is that the amending Act introduced Section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act, allowing certain deductions, that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, in so far as it did not allow the deductions contempated by Section 8A, is illegal and that the Tribunal should have remanded the matter to the Commercial Tax Officer for making fresh assessment after allowing deductions permissible under Section 8A of the abovesaid Act.
8. It has to be seen that the deductions permissible under Section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act are only those allowed under Rule 11(2) of the Central Sales Tax Rules which were in force even on the date of passing of the original assessment order by the Commercial Tax Officer. By the Amendment Act 28 of 1969, the said rule was deleted and it was inserted as Section 8A in the Central Act. The deduction allowed by Section 8A is not a new provision which has to be applied in the case of the petitioners for the first time after the amending Act came into force.
9. It is stated by the learned counsel for the department that the petitioners did not claim any deduction permissible under Rule 11(2) of the Rules.
10. That is a matter which cannot be gone into in these revision cases. The Tribunal has given a direction to the assessing authority to redetermine the taxable turnover of the appellants allowing the deductions permissible under Section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act. This question whether they are entitled to any deductions under Section 8A has to be determined by the assessing authority.
11. In the result, these revision cases are dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100 each.