J.V. Gupta, J.
1. This order will dispose of L. P. A. Nos. 3 to 10 of 1977 as all of them arise out of one order whereby eight writ petitions were dismissed.
2. It is sufficient to refer to the facts in L. P. A. No. 3 of 1977 arising out of Writ Petition No. 1530 of 19761. The appellant, M/s. True Lines (India) Industries, was assessed to sales tax by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, by order dated 29th January, 1973. On 22nd January, 1976, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana, issued a notice purported to be under Section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the (1)  39 S.T.C. 258. Act), informing the appellant that he had called for the record of the proceedings of the assessment order dated 29th January, 1973, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality and propriety of the proceedings and that he proposed to give an opportunity to the appellant of being heard from all aspects of the matter. At the bottom of the notice, it was stated as follows :
Remarks.-The sales of Rs. 1,02,056.48 and Rs. 1,06,807.50 taxed at the rate of 1 per cent and 3 per cent respectively under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, shown to M/s. Shambhu Lal Nanji & Co., Bombay, were denied and seven other firms.
3. The appellant questioned the validity of the abovesaid notice by a writ petition on the ground that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner was not in fact trying to revise the order of assessment of the Assessing Authority, but was trying to reopen the assessment on the basis of fresh information received by him subsequent to the order of assessment. It was, therefore, urged that he was not competent to do so as the power to reopen the assessment on the basis of fresh information was vested under Section 11A of the Act in the Assessing Authority and not in the revising authority. It was further submitted that the revising authority acting under Section 21(1) of the Act had to confine himself to the record of the proceedings on which the Assessing Authority based the order of assessment and not on any such information that came into its possession subsequently. In support of this contention reliance was placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Chand Rattan Chand & Co. v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner  24 S.T.C. 258 (F.B.).
4. In the return filed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, it was specifically stated in para 6 thereof that the suspicion arose from the variations of signatures of Shambhu Lal Nanji appended on 'C form and declaration in special form'. Enquiry started on that basis revealed that many of the dealers to whom the party had made the alleged sales in lakhs of rupees either did not exist or their registration certificates stood cancelled long before the date of the sale or they denied the purchases.
5. On the basis of all these averments, the learned single Judge, after considering the judgment of the Full Bench referred to above, came to the conclusion that 'the proceeding for revision was initiated on the basis of suspicious features found in the record itself. The revising authority was, therefore, perfectly competent to issue the impugned notice'.' Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of the Full Bench judgment referred to above, contended before us that no such proceeding under Section 21(1) of the Act could be taken by the revising authority as it could not take into consideration any fresh material in order to come to a conclusion that the order or the proceedings suffer from the vice of impropriety or illegality.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the Full Bench judgment, we do not find any merit in these appeals. According to the judgment of the Full Bench, it has been rightly observed by the learned single Judge that such further inquiry or evidence must be germane to the turnover already on the record and not to the turnover which is sought to be brought in for the first time as a result of some information obtained from somewhere. On the basis of these observations, it has been correctly held that in the present case the revising authority found from the record which was before the Assessing Authority that certain transactions appeared to be bogus. On the basis of what was found in the record the revising authority made further inquiry which he was competent to do. It was not a case where the revising authority initiated the proceedings for revision on the basis of fresh information received by him which was not already a part of the record.
8. For the reasons recorded above, these appeals fail and are dismissed, but with no order as to costs.