Obul Reddi, J.
1. Two questions arise for our consideration in this tax revision case. They are : (1) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was competent, under Section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, to revise the order of the assessing authority; and (2) Whether the sale of the goods was complete in Andhra area or in Telangana area.
2. For the determination of the questions, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts : The petitioners were groundnut oil-millers at Warangal in Telangana area and they were purchasing groundnuts and crushing the same into oil and exporting the oil outside the State. They were filing monthly returns and in this case, before the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, they had filed two monthly returns, although the assessment was completed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Warangal, for the assessment year 1957-58 after 15th June, 1957. The Commercial Tax Officer granted exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 6,75,634.54 representing the value of the groundnuts purchased by the assessee prior to the coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. This turnover was not subjected to tax. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in exercise of his powers under Section 20(2) of the said Act, issued a notice to show cause why the exemption granted by the Commercial Tax Officer in respect of the said turnover should not be cancelled on the ground that the purchase of the groundnuts relating to the said turnover was completed only at Warangal and, as such, they were not entitled to the exemption under the provisions of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act. The petitioners submitted their representations contending that inasmuch as the assessment proceedings were initiated by reason of their having filed the monthly returns prior to the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, they were governed by the provisions of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, which empowered only the Commissioner to revise the assessment made by the assessing authority and that, as the goods were to be delivered F.O.R. in Andhra area as per the terms of the contract, the property in the goods passed to the buyer in Andhra area and that, therefore, the sales that were completed in Andhra area were exempt under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Both these contentions were negatived and revision was made by the Deputy Commissioner subjecting the petitioners to sales tax on the exempted turnover. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal negatived both the contentions and dismissed the appeal. Hence the revision.
3. Section 15 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act empowers the Commissioner, in his discretion, to call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding taken by any officer subordinate to him. It is true that the assessment proceedings commenced in this case prior to the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, as two monthly returns were filed by then by the petitioners. But the question is whether the Deputy Commissioner is competent, by reason of the fact that the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act came into force on 15th June, 1957, to revise the assessment in exercise of his powers under Section 20(2).
4. It should be remembered that neither the right of the petitioners to be assessed at the rates provided in the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act nor the right of appeal to the forums provided under the Act nor any other right is sought to be taken away. Whether the revisional jurisdiction is exercised by the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner is immaterial in so far as the petitioners are concerned, as it in no way takes away or affects the assessee's rights to be heard before any effect is given to the proposed revision.
5. Further, no person has a right to say that he shall be heard only by a particular forum, so long as his vested rights are not affected or taken away by the provisions of the new Act. As to which authority should exercise revisional jurisdiction is purely procedural and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment proceedings commenced even before the coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, is competent to act under Section 20(2) of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act provides for such contingencies as if this Act had been in force at the date when the returns were filed.
6. With regard to the second contention, it is true that the goods were to be delivered F.O.R. in Andhra area as per the terms of the contract; but the fact that the goods were to be booked F.O.R. in Andhra area does not by itself show that the property in the goods passed to the buyer the moment the goods were consigned. Here is a case where the seller retained the ownership of the goods by consigning them in his own name to Warangal and the R. Rs. were sent to his backers to be delivered to the buyer against payment.
7. The Tribunal, therefore, having regard to the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, rightly held that the property in the goods passed only at Warangal and, as such, the sales were not complete in Andhra area. It is, therefore, obvious that the provisions of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act would apply and that the petitioners are not entitled to the exemption on the disputed turnover.
8. In the result, we find no merits in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.