ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugns the proceedings under section 11(5) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. The petitioner received a notice in Form XII, dated 21st June, 1952, from the Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, asking him to show cause why he should not be assessed in respect of the period 1st June, 1947, to 5th October, 1950. After the decision by the Sales Tax Officer, the matter went up in appeal and was heard and decided on 25th May, 1953, by Shri H. B. Munshi who was until 15th May, 1953, the Headquarters Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, and on abolition of that office with effect from that date was appointed as the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. This Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 383 of 1953 held that Shri Munshi had no authority as Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax to hear and dispose of the matter and directed that the appeal be heard by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. 3. The appeal, in pursuance of the decision of this Court, was heard by respondent No. 2 and was decided by him by an order dated 24th March, 1955. It was contended before him that under section 11(5) of the Act the action for assessment could be taken only within 3 years from the expiry of the period of default and accordingly the period before 3 years from 21st June, 1952, when the notice in Form XII was issued, could not be the subject of assessment. Respondent No. 2 observed on this point :- "In this case the period of default was from 1st June, 1947, to 5th October, 1950. It means that the period of default expired on 5th October, 1950. From this date the assessment or action to recover tax can be started within three years. The Assessing Officer was thus competent to initiate assessment proceedings for the unregistered period from 1st June, 1947, to 5th October, 1950, in time during 5th October, 1950, to 5th October, 1953. In this particular case the assessment proceedings were started on 18th September, 1950, when the Sales Tax Officer took action in the complaint case itself to examine the accounts for purposes of recovery of tax and ultimately issued notice in Form XII on 21st June, 1952. In this particular case the assessment proceedings were started on 18th September, 1950, when the Sales Tax Officer took action in the complaint case itself to examine the accounts for purposes of recovery of tax and ultimately issued notice in Form XII on 21st June, 1952. These two dates clearly fall within the period of three years from 5th October, 1950. Hence the entire period of default from 1st June, 1947, to 5th October, 1950, during which the appellant remained unregistered wilfully and failed to pay tax is within the limitation prescribed under section 11(5) as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment) Act of 1953 retrospectively." The operative part of his order is as below :- "Thus all grounds relating to the question of limitation have fallen and I hold that the appellant was rightly assessed to tax for the entire period from 1st June, 1947, to 5th October, 1950, and further hold that he is liable to pay tax for this period and the tax for this period is validly recoverable under section 11(5) in view of my above findings." 4. Respondent No. 2, however, found that the notice in Form XII was invalid on the ground that the portion thereof that was filled in described the petitioner as a registered dealer during the period 1st June, 1947, to 5th October, 1950, whereas he was actually granted a registration certificate on 6th October, 1950. In his opinion, this "inconsistency and error" rendered the notice invalid, and accordingly the assessment made on its basis was null and void. He accordingly passed the following order :- "In view of my findings on grounds Nos. 2 and 3 above, I have no other alternative but to quash the assessment proceedings and send back the case for fresh assessment in accordance with the provisions of law. It is accordingly ordered." 5. It was not disputed before us that the view of respondent No. 2 as regards the validity of the notice in Form XII is erroneous. The mistake in describing the petitioner therein as a registered dealer during the period in question was obviously accidental, and did not affect the substance of the notice. This misdescription did not also mislead the petitioner or cause him any prejudice. The validity of the notice was not, therefore, affected by this mistake which was not on any vital point. 6. This misdescription did not also mislead the petitioner or cause him any prejudice. The validity of the notice was not, therefore, affected by this mistake which was not on any vital point. 6. Section 11(5) of the Act has been amended by Act XX of 1953, and the amendment has been given retrospective effect from 1st June, 1947. In its present form section 11(5) stands as below :- "If upon information which has come into his possession, the Commissioner is satisfied that any dealer has been liable to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period and has nevertheless wilfully failed to apply for registration, the Commissioner shall, at any time within three calendar years from the expiry of such period, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, proceed in such manner as may be prescribed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer in respect of such period and all subsequent periods; and the Commissioner may direct that the dealer shall pay by way of penalty in addition to the amount of tax so assessed a sum not exceeding one and a half times that amount." It is thus obvious that the Commissioner cannot proceed to assess the dealer for any period which expires before 3 years from that date. The question that arises for determination, therefore, is when the Commissioner should be deemed to have proceeded to assess the petitioner, that is, 21st June, 1952, when he issued the notice in Form XII, or 18th September, 1950, when he took the first action to examine the accounts. 7. Section 11(5) of the Act makes it obligatory on the Commissioner to give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard before he proceeds to assess him. It is thus obvious that until he issues a notice to the dealer to show cause against the proposed assessment, he cannot be deemed to proceed to assess him. The notice under this section is issued in Form XII and was issued in the instant case on 21st June, 1952. Any action taken prior to this date cannot, therefore, be the date from which the period of 3 years has to be reckoned. The notice under this section is issued in Form XII and was issued in the instant case on 21st June, 1952. Any action taken prior to this date cannot, therefore, be the date from which the period of 3 years has to be reckoned. The notice in Form XII is doubtless issued after the Commissioner is satisfied (i) that the dealer has been liable to pay tax in respect of any period, and (ii) that he has wilfully failed to apply for registration. But the date of his satisfaction is not the date for computing the period of limitation as he cannot proceed to assess the dealer until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, that is, not until he is given a notice in Form XII. Therefore, unless the period for which the assessment has to be made ends within 3 years from the date when the Commissioner issues the notice in Form XII, it cannot be the subject of assessment. 8. In the above view the assessment cannot be made for any period which expired before 3 years from 21st June, 1952. It is, therefore, directed that the Sales Tax Officer shall proceed to assess the petitioner accordingly. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of the security shall be refunded to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.