Judgment :- 1. This is a petition for reviewing the order in T. R. C. No. 45 of 1963 dated 2 61964. That decision is in Mathai v. State of Kerala reported in 1964 K. L.T. 483. 2. A few facts are necessary to understand the scope of this petition. The assessee was a licensee under S.9 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. For the year 1955 1956 he submitted a return showing a gross turnover of Rs. 3,03,766 116 and claimed exemption on the whole of the turnover on the ground that he is a mere commission agent. Exemption was granted by the Sales Tax Officer and by an order dated 15 2 1957 it was found that no sales tax was payable for the year and a licence fee of Rs. 500 was imposed on him. More than three years after the close of the assessment year 1955 1956, that is, after 313 1959, notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone, Quilon on the assessee purporting to act under S.15(1) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. This notice was served on the assessee on 16 21960. There is no case that the notice was even issued before 313 1959. Notwithstanding the objection taken by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, Quilon assessed the petitioner on the entire turnover of Rs. 3,03,766 116. The assessee challenged that order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 5 31960 as well as the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer on 15 21957 and directed the Sales Tax Officer to deal with the matter afresh. The Sales tax Officer thereafter assessed the petitioner in the tax revision case on the turnover mentioned above. Appeals taken by the petitioner against that assessment before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal turned futile and hence it was that tax revision case, 45 of 1963, was taken before this Court. 3. We took the view in the decision in T. R. C. No. 45 of 1963 that the orders assessing the petitioner to sales tax were unsustainable and so set them aside. 3. We took the view in the decision in T. R. C. No. 45 of 1963 that the orders assessing the petitioner to sales tax were unsustainable and so set them aside. In the concluding part of the judgment in that case we observed as follows: "In view of the fact that all orders prior to the date of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal were vacated by the Appellate Tribunal, we think that any fresh assessment by the Sales Tax Officer must be governed by R.33(1). If that be so, the assessment must have been completed on or before 31 31959. The assessment in this case is long after and therefore, cannot be sustained. We therefore set aside the orders of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and restore the original order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 15 21957." This passage is perhaps misleading and we find that it has been understood in a manner that was not intended. All that was meant was, though the passage is capable of being understood otherwise, that an order having been passed on 15 21957 in relation to the year 1955 56 exempting the entire turnover, turnover for the year had escaped assessment (assuming it was taxable) and that no steps could have been taken after 31-3-1959 (after the lapse of three years from the close of the year of assessment) for assessing that turnover. This is so provided in R.33(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules. So the action taken by the Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, Quilon, after 31-3-1959 which resulted in the service of notice on the assessee on 16-12-1960 was clearly without jurisdiction and the assessment orders in the tax revision case and which followed could not stand. We therefore rightly set aside the orders. Apart from the clarification which we have made in this order, we do not think that the decision in T. R. C. No. 45 of 1963 calls for interference. We therefore dismiss this petition but without any order as to costs. Dismissed.