R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) THE petition is directed against the notice dated March 19, 1976 issued by the Assistant Sugar Commissioner, Bareilly. The notice stated that the Khandsari Officer, Bareilly, has submitted a report for review of the orders passed by the Khandsari Inspector for the sessions 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 under Section 3 (b). The notice required the petitioner to appear in the office of the Asstt. Sugar Commissioner, Bareilly, on April 12, 1976 with com plete documents and records.
(2.) THE petition is Dressed on a number of grounds. One of the grounds is that the Sugar Commissioner has no jurisdiction under Section 3 B to revise the assessment orders after expiry of the period of six months from the date when they were passed. It has been stated in the writ petition that the assessment orders for differ ent seasons were passed on different dates but the last order for 1974-75. which is being sought to be reviewed, was passed in May, 1975. The petitioner has filed as Annexures 1 to 12 to the writ peti tion, copies of the assessment orders for different months which are proposed to be revised under Section 3-B. The dates of various as sessment orders are not denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit nor was the notice issued on the basis that proceedings for revision were initiated within a period of six months of the passing of the assessment order. The only legal plea raised in the counter affidavit if that the Assistant Sugar Commissioner is empowered under Section 3-B to call for the record and pass the order suo motu. There is no dispute that the power to revise the order suo motu is contained to Section 3-B. The question, however, is whether the Assistant Sugar Commissioner has exercised his power suo motu. There is nothing to indicate either in the notice or in the counter affi davit that the proceedings were started suo motu by the Commissioner. On the other hand, it is clear from the notice that they were initiated on the report submitted by the Khandsari Inspector. Sec tion 3-B provides a period of six months for the revision of an order passed by a Khandsari Inspector or Khandsari Officer. There is no dispute that the report for revising the order in each case was made after six months. The proceedings having been initiated after six months, they were barred by time. The Assistant Sugar Commis sioner had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. The notice issued by him on March 19, 1976 for the revision of the assessment orders for seasons 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 is consesuently bad.
(3.) THE result is that the writ petition succeeds and it is allowed. The notice dated March 19, 1975, filed as Annexure '13' to the writ petition is quashed and respondent No. 1 is restrained from revising the assessment orders passed for the seasons 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 under Section 3-B of U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.;