ANSHUMAN SINGH, J. - (1.) This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against issuance of a notice dated December 8, 1987, served on the petitioner on December 22, 1987, under section 10-B of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the assessment year 1981-82 for quashing the proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid notice. In the instant case, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. There is no private party to the writ petition. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself as provided under second proviso to rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the court. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm of which petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners. The firm is registered under both the U. P. and Central Sales Tax Acts. The firm is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of cotton cloth, niwar, etc. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee was assessed under the U. P. Sales Tax Act by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector IX, Kanpur, on January 30, 1984. It has been alleged that the entire turnover was disclosed by the assessee and after assessment proceedings the entire turnover was taxed by the assessment order mentioned above by the Sales Tax Officer. It has been alleged by the assessee that though no part of the turnover has escaped assessment yet the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Kanpur Range, Kanpur, respondent No. 2, issued the impugned notice on the ground that the petitioner has made supply of cotton rope to D. G. S. and D. , Kanpur, regarding which the sale has escaped assessment, hence assessment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under section 10-B of the Act. A perusal of the impugned notice dated December 8, 1987, copy of which has been filed as annexure 2 to the writ petition, clearly reveals that the action has been initiated against the petitioner only on the ground that the turnover of supply made to D. G. S. and D. , Kanpur, has escaped assessment and no tax has been levied on the aforesaid turnover. We have heard Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that assuming that the turnover on the supplies made to D. G. S. and D. , Kanpur, has escaped assessment, proceedings under section 10-B of the Act could not have been initiated and the same are void, illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that assuming that if any part of the turnover of the assessee has escaped assessment then the only provision contained in the Sales Tax Act under which proceedings for reassessment of the escaped turnover could be initiated is under section 21 of the Act and no proceedings for the alleged escaped assessment could be initiated under section 10-B of the Act. From the submission made on behalf of the counsel for the assessee, the only issue which emerges on the facts of the case in the instant petition is as to what is the provision under which proceedings for assessment of escaped turnover of the assessee can be initiated. Before appreciating the contention raised on behalf of the assessee and recording any finding and expressing any option on the contention, it appears desirable to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Firstly, we would like to refer to the provision of section 10-B of the Act under which the impugned notice has been issued. It reads as under : " Section 10-B : Revision by Commissioner of Sales Tax.- (1) The Commissioner of Sales Tax or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax as may be authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification may call for and examine the record relating to any order (other than an order mentioned in section 10-A) passed by any officer sub-ordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. " From a perusal of the language used by the Legislature in section 10-B of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the power under section 10-B has been conferred on the authority mentioned therein to call for and examine the record relating to any order passed by any officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. In the instant case, there is no manner of doubt that the respondent No. 2 has not invoked the jurisdiction conferred on it under section 10-B of the Act for satisfying itself about the propriety or legality of the assessment order dated January 30, 1984, relating to the assessment year 1981-82. On the contrary, the power conferred under section 10-B has been pressed into service by the respondent for levying tax on the escaped turnover of the assessee during the assessment year 1981-82. Counsel for the assessee has frankly conceded before us that if any part of the turnover of the assessee has escaped assessment during the assessment year in question, the only provision under which the proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner for reassessment on the escaped turnover is section 21 of the Act. We, therefore, propose to refer to the provision of section 21 also before recording our findings on the controversy involved in so far as it is relevant for the purposes of the present case which is as under : " Section 21 : Assessment of tax on the turnover not assessed during the year.- (1) If the assessing authority has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of the dealer, for any assessment year or part thereof, has escaped assessment to tax or has been under-assessed or has been assessed to tax at a rate lower than that at which it is assessable under this Act, or any deductions or exemptions have been wrongly allowed in respect thereof, the assessing authority may, after issuing notice to the dealer and making such inquiry as it may consider necessary, assess or reassess the dealer or tax according to law : Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been charged had the turnover not escaped assessment, or full assessment, as the case may be. Explanation I.- Nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to prevent the assessing authority from making an assessment to the best of its judgment. Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section and of section 22, assessing authority means the officer or authority who passes the earlier assessment order, if any, and includes the officer or authority having jurisdiction for the time being to assess the dealer. Explanation III.- Notwithstanding the issuance of notice under this sub-section, where an order of assessment or reassessment is in existence from before the issuance of such notice it shall continue to be effective as such, until varied by an order of assessment or reassessment made under this section in pursuance of such notice. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no order of assessment or reassessment under any provision of this Act for any assessment year shall be made after the expiration of four years from the end of such year : Provided that if the Commissioner of Sales Tax on being satisfied on the basis of reasons recorded by the assessing authority, that it is just and expedient so to do authorises the assessing authority in that behalf, such assessment or reassessment may be made after the expiration of the period aforesaid but not after the expiration of eight years from the end of such year notwithstanding that such assessment or reassessment may involve a change of opinion. " The language used in section 21 (1) of the Act is crystal-clear and deals with a situation where during any assessment year the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer escapes assessment. After reading the provisions, we are of the definite view that where the whole or any part of the turnover of the assessee escaped assessment, then the only provision under which proceedings can be initiated for assessment is section 21, of course, sub-clause (2), of the Act. Counsel for the parties have stated before us that there is not authority on the point either in favour or against proposition canvassed before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before us that a similar controversy arose before the Calcutta High Court under the Income-tax Act. He contended that section 10-B of the Act was in part materia to the provision in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and in that case, it was held that the proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is in pari materia to the provisions of section 10-B of the Act could not have been initiated against the petitioner. In order to appreciate the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and also for arriving at the conclusion whether the ratio laid down in the case of Ganga Properties v. Income-tax Officer reported in [1979] 118 ITR 447 (Cal) is applicable or not we would like to refer to the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which reads as under : " 263 (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the (assessing) officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. " From a perusal of the language used in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, it appears that revisional power has been conferred on the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act for satisfying himself whether any order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and he may make such further enquiry as he deems fit and pass orders in the circumstances of the case. From the above, it appears that while exercising the power of revision the revising authority must confine itself to the material available on the record of the assessing officer, and it cannot take into consideration any material which was not on the record of the assessing officer. The revisional power can be exercised only to satisfy the revising authority about the legality or the correctness of the orders passed under the Act on the basis of the existing material and not on subsequent information or material. As such it is abundantly clear that this revisional power can be exercised by the Commissioner only on the basis of material on the record of the assessing authority. But the power of revision could not be exercised for assessing an assessee on the basis of any subsequent information or material collected against him and it is on this basis that the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the power under section 10-B of the Act which is revisional power of the Commissioner could not be invoked for assessing the escaped turnover if any of the assessee during the assessment year in question. It is not the case of the Revenue that any illegality or impropriety was committed by the Sales Tax Officer in passing the assessment order on the disclosed turnover of the assessee. The case of the Revenue is that a part of the turnover of the assessee has escaped assessment on which no impose has been levied. The facts of the case of Ganga Properties [1979] 118 ITR 447 (Cal) in short were that the petitioner-company sold lands to different persons for a total sum of Rs. 7,51,512 and in its return of income declared the same as the full value of the consideration received by it for purposes of computation of capital gains. The Income-tax Officer in the assessment proceedings referred the valuation of lands to the Valuation Officer under section 55-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in his assessment order dated March 22, 1974, recorded that as there was no possibility of getting the valuation report by March 31, 1974, he would accept the value of the consideration as declared by the petitioner for the present till such time as the Valuation Officer gave his report, and action, if necessary, would then be taken according to the provisions of the Act. The petitioner paid the tax as demanded by the Income-tax Officer. Thereafter, the Commissioner issued under section 263 of the Act a notice to the petitioner on the ground that the Valuation Officer had valued the fair market value of the asset at Rs. 10,85,250 in place of Rs. 7,51,512 declared by the petitioner, that the Income-tax Officer erred in accepting the value of the consideration declared by the petitioner and that the order of the Income-tax Officer dated March 22, 1974, was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner in that case the proceedings under section 263 (1) were held to be invalid and it was held that the proceedings for revision, rectification or reassessment were entirely different and the proceedings for rectification or reassessment could not be initiated under revisional jurisdiction. We have carefully perused the facts and the ratio laid down in the case of Ganga Properties v. Income-tax Officer [1979] 118 ITR 447 (Cal) and we find outself in full agreement with the view taken therein that revisional jurisdiction is confined to the materials on record and will empower the authorities under the Act only to satisfy itself about the correctness, propriety and legality of the order and will not empower the authorities for initiating the proceedings for rectification or reassessment. In the instant case, the turnover of the assessee for the assessment year in question was fully examined and after full scrutiny, the same was subjected to tax by the Sales Tax Officer, and subsequently if it was found on the basis of material not already on record that a part of the turnover of the assessee had escaped assessment then the only course available to the authorities under the Act was to issue notice under section 21 of the Act for assessment but the impugned notice issued under section 10-B of the Act could not have been issued as there appears to be no illegality or impropriety in the assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice dated December 8, 1987, is quashed and the respondents are restrained from proceeding against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned notice dated December 8, 1987, for the assessment year 1981-82 for reassessment. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .;