Judgment Untwalia, J. 1. In this case the assessee applied for registration under Sec.9 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act before the Superintendent of Sales Tax, Urban Circle, Patna, stating that for the period from the 1st April, 1955, to the 30th September, 1955, the turnover of its business had exceeded the limit of Rs.15,000 provided under the Act. On the basis of the information supplied in the application a registration certificate was granted on the 5th November, 1955, to the assessee in Form No. II of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, wherein it was stated that the assessee "is liable to pay tax on sales made from the 1st October, 1955". Later on it was discovered on inspection by Sri. S. Chandra, Inspector of Sales Tax, that the assessee has been carrying on business at least from the year 1948. The Inspector reported that the proprietor of the business was Ashwani Kumar Sarkar, who was also the proprietor of Saudamani Stores. On the 22nd July, 1956, the Superintendent of Sales Tax initiated a proceeding under Sec.13 (5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act for assessment of sales tax against the assessee for the period from the 2nd July, 1952, to the 30th September, 1955. The assessment was made by the Superintendent of Sales Tax to the best of his judgment because the assessee deliberately failed to produce the relevant books of account. An appeal was taken by the assessee to the Assistant Cmmissioner of Commercial Taxes, but the appeal was dismissed. An application in revision was made before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and the argument was advanced that the assessment made under Sec.13 (5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act was illegal since it was tantamount to a review of the previous order of the Superintendent of Sales Tax dated the 5th November, 1955, granting registration certificate, and the review proceeding could not be started without the previous sanction of the Commissioner. The argument was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, but when the matter was taken in revision before the Board of Revenue the revision application was allowed and the Board of Revenue held that the assessment proceeding under Sec.13 (5) of the Act was illegal and should be set aside because it is tantamount to a review of the previous order granting registration certificate which fixed the liability of the assessee from the 1st of October, 1955. Under Sec.25 (3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :- Whether on the facts and circumstances. of the case the order of assessment dated the 28th September, 1956, passed by the Superintendent, Sales Tax, Patna, amounted to an order of review and was invalid for want of sanction of the Commissioner as required under Rule 39, Sub-rule (3), of the Sales Tax Rules, 1949? 2 On behalf of the State of Bihar the learned Government Advocate put forward the argument that the Board of Revenue was erroneous in holding that the order of assessment made under Sec.13 (5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act by the Superintendent of Sales Tax on the 28th September, 1956, was tantamount to an order of review within the meaning of Sec.24 (5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, and that previous sanction of the Commissioner was necessary under Rule 39 (3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, which reads as follows :- 39. Review * * * * (3) No officer below the rank of Commissioner shall review any order which has been passed by any of his predecessors-in-office, except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. 3 In our opinion the argument of the learned Government Advocate is well founded and must be accepted as correct. The order of the Superintendent of Sales Tax granting a registration certificate on the 5th November, 1955, was made under the power granted by Sec.9 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, which provides for registration of dealers and which is to the following effect :- "9. Registration of dealers- (1) No dealer shall, while being liable under Sec.4 to pay tax under this Act, carry on business as a dealer unless he has been registered under this Act and possesses a registration certificate. Registration of dealers- (1) No dealer shall, while being liable under Sec.4 to pay tax under this Act, carry on business as a dealer unless he has been registered under this Act and possesses a registration certificate. (2) Every dealer required by Sub-section (1) to be registered shall make application in such behalf in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority. (3) On receipt of an application, the prescribed authority shall, if he is satisfied that the application is in order, register the applicant and grant him a certificate of registration in the prescribed form which shall specify the class or classes of goods in which at the time of the grant of the said certificate the dealer carries on business and such other particulars as may be prescribed. " Form I at page 61 of the Bihar Commercial Taxes Manual, Volume II, deals with the application for registration and gives the list of requirements to be furnished by the dealer seeking registration of his business. Form II deals with the form of certificate and reads as follows :- 3_701_STC12_1961.htm 4. On behalf of the assessee much stress was laid in the course of the argument on the statement of the registering officer in the registration certificate that "the assessee is liable to pay taxes on sales made from the 1st October, 1955. " ft was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that this was tantamount to a judicial finding by the Superintendent, of Sales Tax that the assessee was liable to pay taxes only from the 1st October, 1955, and not for a previous period. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that there was a finding of the Superintendent of Sales Tax about the starting point of the liability of the dealer to pay sales tax and that finding cannot be altered or set aside except by a proceeding for review under Sec.24 (5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, read with rule 89 (3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules. We are unable to accept the argument of learned counsel for the assessee as correct. Sec.9 of the Act. confers powers upon the Superintendent of Sales Tax only to make an inquiry with regard to the matter of registration certificate. We are unable to accept the argument of learned counsel for the assessee as correct. Sec.9 of the Act. confers powers upon the Superintendent of Sales Tax only to make an inquiry with regard to the matter of registration certificate. There is no power conferred by the section or in the connected rules authorising the Superintendent of Sales Tax to make an inquiry with regard to the liability of the dealer to pay tax for a period previous to the one for which registration is applied for. Assuming in favour of the assessee that there was a finding of the Superintendent of Sales Tax that the assessee was liable to pay sales tax only from the 1st October, 1955, there is no finality in law with regard to that finding, and such a finding, even if it. is assumed to have been made, is beyond the scope of the authority of the Superintendent of Sales Tax acting under the provisions of Sec.9 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act or under the rules made by the State Government in that behalf. It is manifest that in this case we are concerned with the question of assessment of sales tax for a period for which the assessee has failed to apply for registration, and a matter of this description is directly covered by the statutory provisions of Sec.13 (5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, which is reproduced below:- "13. Assessment. * * * (5) 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, or having applied for registration, failed to furnish any particulars or information required by the prescribed authority for the purposes of Sec.9, the Commissioner shall, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, assess, to the best of his judgment, the amount of tax, if any, 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 so assessed a sum not exceeding one and a half times that amount. " 5 On the facts found by the Sales Tax Authorities it is manifest in the present case that the assessee has been liable to pay tax under the Bihar Sales Tax Act in respect of the period from the 2nd July, 1952, to the 30th September, 1955, and that in respect of this period the assessee has wilfully failed to apply for registration. In our opinion, therefore, the case falls directly within the language of Sec.13 (5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act and the proceedings taken under that section are legally valid. In a case of this description there is no question of any review of the order of registration under Sec.24 (5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act and no sanction of the Commissioner is necessary for such proceedings under Rule 39 (3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules. 6. For these reasons we hold that the order of assessment dated the 28th September, 1956, made by the Superintendent of Sales Tax, Patna, does not amount to an order of review within the meaning of Sec.24 (5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, and no sanction of the Commissioner is necessary to the initiation of such proceedings under Rule 39, Sub-rule (3), of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules. We accordingly answer the question of law referred to the High Court by the Board of Revenue in favour of the State of Bihar and against the assessee. The assessee must pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs.250.