K. C. AGRAWAL, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision filed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward I, Anti-evasion, Jodhpur, against the judgment of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, dated September 10, 1986, passed in Sales Tax Appeal No. 243/1985/st/pali.
(2.) IN this case the only point urged by the learned counsel is that as the reassessment had already been made in pursuance of the remand order on August 5, 1986, which was within two years of the receipt of communication, the Tribunal was wrong in holding that : " It is clear from this notice that the extension was not granted till August 16, 1986. It has been held in Hi Sales Corpn. of INdia v. A. C. T. O. , Jaipur 1983 RRD 177 that after the expiry of the limitation, extension cannot be granted under section 10b (2) (i) of the Act. " Counsel for the tax department relied on the following amendment made in section 10b of the Sales Tax Act for his submission that the assessment order was within time. The amendment is being reproduced below : " Section 10b (2) (i) : Where such assessment is made in consequence of or to give effect to, any order of an appellate or revisional authority or reference to the High Court or of a competent court, it shall be completed within two years of the communication of such order to the assessing authority and all such assessments pending on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1979, shall be completed within one year from the date of such commencement or within two years from the date of communication of such order to the assessing authority, whichever is later. " Counsel's submission was that when the reassessment had been made the appeal pending before the Tribunal had become infructuous and the same should have been dismissed on that ground. To the dismissal of the appeals pending before the Tribunal in which the impugned judgments have been passed there was no objection from the side of the assessee's counsel, Sri Vineet Kothari. What he objected was that in case reassessment was not completed within the period prescribed by law they would be invalid. Be that as it may what is necessary in this case to decide is whether the Tribunal was justified in making observations with regard to the orders passed in reassessment. To my mind, it appears that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to do so. If the reassessment proceedings have not taken place within the period stipulated by law, the same would be invalid on that ground. It may, however, be pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, remanded the case on June 7, 1984 and that was communicated to the assessing authority on August 7, 1984. If two years are calculated on the basis of the amended section 10b, quoted above, reassessment made on August 5, 1986, would be well within time. However, as stated above, I am not called upon to go into this controversy on merits. What is required only is to clear off the parties of the effect of the observation of the Tribunal's judgment extracted above. Those observations will have no effect on the rights of the parties. Subject to the above, the revision is disposed of. .;