Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the respondent the Sales Tax Officer, Ponnani in O. P. No. 352 of 1965. The only question for determination is whether the proceedings initiated for taxing the escaped turnover of the two respondents before us is within time or not. 2. The assessment year concerned is 1960-61 and the assessment order is dated 18 91961. The Act in force at that time and till 1-4-1963 was the General Sales Tax Act. 1125.On that date it was repealed and replaced by the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. It is common ground that the question of limitation raised in the case has to be resolved in the light of R.33(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950. That sub-rule reads as follows: "If for any reason the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer or licensee has escaped assessment to the tax in any year or if the licencee fee has escapade levy in any year, the assessing authority or licensing authority as the case may be, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) may at any time within three years next succeeding that to which the tax or licence fee relates determine to the best of his judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable or levy the licence fee in such turnover after issuing a notice to the dealer or licensee and after making such enquiry as he considers necessary." 3. R.33(1) makes it quite clear that the assessing authority must "determine" the turnover which has escaped three years next succeeding that to which the tax relates. In this case the three years prescribed elapsed on 313 1964, and it is not disputed that the assessing authority had not determined the turnover which had escaped assessment and assessed the tax payable on or before that date. 4. It is submitted that notices were issued on 14 21964 and 18 21964 to the second and first respondents respectively. Further notices followed on 3011965; Ext. P-1 to the first respondent, Ext. P-2 to the second respondent and Ext. P-3 jointly to the first and second respondents. 4. It is submitted that notices were issued on 14 21964 and 18 21964 to the second and first respondents respectively. Further notices followed on 3011965; Ext. P-1 to the first respondent, Ext. P-2 to the second respondent and Ext. P-3 jointly to the first and second respondents. These notices, however, cannot amount to a determination of the turnover which escaped assessment of the tax payable which is what is contemplated by R.33(1) as essential within the time prescribed, namely the three years next succeeding that to which the tax relates. 5. It follows that the judgment under appeal which quashed Exts. P-1 to P-3 has to be sustained, and that this writ appeal should be dismissed. We do so; but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. Dismissed.