R.S.SHUKLA,J. - (1.)PROCEEDINGS under Section 22 -B of the C.P. and Berar Sales -Tax Act (hereinafter called Act) were started against the Appellant Assessed by the Sales -Tax Commissioner to revise the original assessment made on 8 -5 -54 by the Sales -Tax Officer. A notice in Form XXV as prescribed under Rule 58 framed under the Act was, therefore, issued on 30 -12 -55. The revised assessment was challenged before the Revenue Board, inter alia, on the ground that the said notice was not according to law. This contention was upheld by my learned predecessor and he allowed the appeal without unnecessarily going into the other grounds of the appeal. The relevant portion of Board's, order dated 29 -11 -56 reads as follows:
4...The notice issued to him, therefore, must contain some indication of the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken. Since no such grounds were given in the notice, it is an irregularity which might have caused him serious prejudice. Subsequent opportunity for inspection of the record is not sufficient to remove the initial irregularity in issuing a notice which did not contain the essential elements of the notice required by law.

(2.)I accept the appeal and remand the proceedings both for 1951 -52 and 1952 -53 to the Sales -Tax Commissioner for taking action afresh for complying with the requirements of the law in accordance with the observations made above.
In compliance of Board's order, the Sales -Tax. Commissioner served on 13 -4 -57 a fresh notice on the Appellant and revised the assessment. This revised order of the Sales -Tax Commissioner has now been challenged on a number of grounds. The main point argued before me, however, is that the fresh notice dated 13 -4 -57, having been issued after the limit of two years prescribed under Section 22 -B (2) was time -barred and the Sales -Tax Commissioner had, therefore, no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order after the expiry of the prescribed period.

(3.)ON behalf of the Sales -Tax Commissioner it was argued by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the proceedings started in pursuance of notice dated 13 -4 -57 were not fresh proceedings. They were started in consequence of the remand order of the Board and as such the proceedings started under the earlier notice dated 30 -12 -55 should be deemed to have continued. He was unable to cite any authority in support of his contention.