JUDGMENT Jagdish Sahai, J. - The question referred by the judge (Revisions) Sales Tax to this Court for its opinion is : Whether in the circumstances and on facts of the case the application in revision filed by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. against assessment order eras barred by time ? We differed in respect of the answer to this question. One of us (Jagdish Sakai, J.) answered the question in the affirmative against the department and in favour of the assessee. The other learned judge (Beg, J.) constituting the Bench, answered the first part of the question in the negative and opined that the period of limitation for the Commissioner to prefer a revision application under Section 10 (3) (i) of the Act will not start from the date of the assessment order. He answered the second part of the question also in the negative by saying that the period of limitation would not commence to run from any date lying within the discretion of or depending upon the wishes of the assessing officer, but would commence in accordance with Section 10 (3-B) , from the actual date on which the Commissioner has been duly apprised of the contents of the assessment order in a mode which may be deemed to be "service" upon him. There being a difference of opinion, the matter was referred to Verma, J. who considered the following question : "Whether, under the circumstances of the case, starting point of limitation for the, department to prefer a. revision against the original assessment order' would start from;'the date of assessment order or would start according to the discretion of the assessing officer or the department from the time the assessing officer wishes to apprise the department about the passing of the assessment as in this case." Verma, J. answered the first part of the question in the affirmative and the second part of the question in the negative, against the department and in favour of the dealer, with the result that the revision application filed by the Commissioner, Sales Tax was time-barred. We answer the question accordingly. Let the record of the case be sent back to the judge (Revisions) Sales Tax for passing an order in conformity with the decision of this Court. The Commissioner, Sales Tax shall pay a sum of Rs. 100- to the assessee by way of costs. We answer the question accordingly. Let the record of the case be sent back to the judge (Revisions) Sales Tax for passing an order in conformity with the decision of this Court. The Commissioner, Sales Tax shall pay a sum of Rs. 100- to the assessee by way of costs. On 4 Difference of opinion between Jagdish Sahai and M. H. Beg, JJ. S. K. Verma, J.-2. This reference has been listed before me because of difference of opinion between Jagdish Sahai. J., and M, H. Beg, J. The question .that requires answer is as follows : "Whether, under the circumstances. of the case starting point of limitation for the department to prefer a revision against the original assessment order would start from the date of assessment order or would start according to the discretion of the assessing officer or the department from the time the assessing officer wishes to apprise the department about the passing of the assessment as in this case ?" Jagdish Sahai, J., answered the question in the affirmative. The question, however, has two-parts and if the answer is simply in the affirmative then the answer to one part of the question becomes contradictory of the answer to the other part. Having answered the question in the affirmative, Jagdish Sahai, J:, held .that the revision filed by the Commissioner was barred by time.: M. H. Beg, J., took a contrary view. He answered both parts of the question in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Commissioner and against,the assessee,, 3. The power of revision is to be found in Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . Section 10 of the Act reads as follows : "10. Power of Revision (1) . The State Government shall -'appoint as Revising Authority a person qualified under clause (2) of Article 217 of the Constitution for appointment as judge of a High Court. (2) The appellate authority appointed under Section 9 shall be under the superintendence and control of the Revising Authority. (3) (i) The Revising Authority (or any Additional Revising Authority). The State Government shall -'appoint as Revising Authority a person qualified under clause (2) of Article 217 of the Constitution for appointment as judge of a High Court. (2) The appellate authority appointed under Section 9 shall be under the superintendence and control of the Revising Authority. (3) (i) The Revising Authority (or any Additional Revising Authority). may, for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety to any order made by any appellate or assessing authority under this Act, in its..discretion, call for and examine, either on its own motion or on, the .application of, the Commissioner of Sales Tax or the persons aggrieved, the record. of such order as it thinks fit. Provided that no such application shall be entertained in any, case, ;where an appeal lay against the order, but was not preferred : (Provided further that an application for stay of realisation of any. amount of tax, fee or penalty, shall not be entertained by the Revising Authority or by any Additional Revising Authority, unless an appeal or revision from the, order of the assessing authority or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is pending before proper authority : Provided also that whenever realisation of any amount of tax, fee or penalty, is stayed by the Revising Authority, or by any Additional Revising Authority, the applicant shall be required to furnish security to the satisfaction of the. assessing authority concerned, within such period as may be specified by it),, (ii) The State Government may appoint (such number of Additional Revising authorities, as it may deem necessary, out of person qualified" for. appointment as Revising Authority). The Additional Revising Authority shall exercise such powers of the Revising Authority as may be prescribed or assigned him by the State Government either generally in any area or in respect of any class of cases. , (3-A) A copy of the order passed under sub-sec. (3) shall be served upon the applicant. (3-B) The application under sub-sec. (3) shall be made within one year from the date of service of the order complained of but the Revising Authority' may on proof of sufficient cause entertain an application within a further period of six months. (4) The Revising Authority shall not pass any order under sub-sec. (3) adversely affecting any person unless an opportunity has been given to such person to be heard. (4) The Revising Authority shall not pass any order under sub-sec. (3) adversely affecting any person unless an opportunity has been given to such person to be heard. (5) If the amount of tax assessed, fee levied or penalty imposed is reduced by the Revising Authority under sub-sec. (3) it shall order the excess amount of tax (fee or penalty) if already realised to be refused." 4. Jagdish Sahai, J., has expressed the view that "service" on the Commissioner under sub-Sec. (3-B) of Section 10 of the Act must be deemed to be on the date on which the assessment order was passed. M. H. Beg, J., has taken the view that "service" means actual service on the Commissioner. 5. The facts of the case giving rise to the reference may now be briefly stated. Messrs Mangal Sen Shyam Lal of Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the dealer') carry on business at Shahjahanpur. The year of assessment is 1957-58. The Sales Tax Officer passed an assessment order on 26th of July, 1958. Subsequently, he discovered that there was some mistake in, the order and he, in January, 1960, wrote to the Personal Assistant of the Commissioner seeking his guidance with regard to the method by which the mistake could be rectified. The Commissioner treated this letter to his Personal Assistant as service' upon himself and he filed a revision on the 11th of April. 1960. The Judge (Revisions) held that the application in revision was barred by time and dismissed it. This reference was, however, made by him at the instance of the Commissioner. 6. Section 10 (3-B) of the Act speaks of service, but there is no provision in the Act requiring service of the assessment order on the Commissioner. Rule 45 of the Rules framed under the Act reads as follows : "45. Notice of demand-As soon as the assessment has been made the Sales Tax Officer shall send to the dealer a notice in Form XI together with a copy of the assessment order free of charge and the dealer shall pay the tax so assessed within the time and in the manner specified in the notice." There cannot, thus be, the least doubt that so far as the dealer is concerned, if lie wants to file a revision, he has to file it within one year from the date of service of the order complained of. He can, however, file the revision only after he has exhausted his remedy of appeal provided by Section 9 of the Act. In this connection reference may also be made to rule 77 of the Rules framed under the Act which reads as follows : "77. Mode of service.-The service of any notice, summons or order under the Act or the Rules may be effected in any of the following ways, namely- (a) by giving or tendering a copy thereof to the dealer or licensee, or his manager or agent; or (b) if such dealer or licensee or his manager or agent cannot easily be found, by leaving a copy thereof at his last known place of business or residence or by giving or tendering it to some adult member of his family; or (c) if the address of such dealer is known to the Sales Tax Officer, by sending a copy thereof to him by registered post; or (d) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixation of a copy ,hereof in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence." This again shows that service of any notice, summons, or order was contemplated only on the assessee and not on the Commissioner. It will be noticed that sub-Sec. (3-A) of Section 10 of the Act requires that a copy of the order passed under sub-Sec. (2) shall be served upon the applicant. Rule 70 of the Rules framed under the Act provides that a copy of every order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) under sub-Sec. (3) of Section 9 or of the judge (Revisions) under sub-Sec. (3) of Section 10, as the case may be, shall be delivered or sent by post to the person affected by the order, and to' the Commissioner. (The italicised is mine) . There is, thus an omission in the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, in respect of 'service' of the assessment order on the Commissioner. The question that arises is whether this omission is deliberate or accidental. It is reasonable to infer that this omission exists because the framers of the Act and the Rules were of the view that the Commissioner was bound to know about assessment orders passed by the Sales Tax Officers under him. The Sales Tax Officers are under the supervision and control of the Commissioner. It is reasonable to infer that this omission exists because the framers of the Act and the Rules were of the view that the Commissioner was bound to know about assessment orders passed by the Sales Tax Officers under him. The Sales Tax Officers are under the supervision and control of the Commissioner. I may refer to the provisions of Rules 81 and 82 of the Rules framed under the Act which read as follows : "81. Transfer of Cases.- (1) The Commissioner may transfer any case or class of cases pending before any Sales Tax Officer to another Sales Tax Officer." "82. Powers of Commissioner to issue instructions. - Consistent with the provisions of the Act and these rules, the Commissioner may issue instructions generally regulating the procedure to be followed in carrying out the provisions of the Act and these rules." In Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1621 it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that a Sales Tax Officer is an instrumentality of the State Government who primarily is interested in the realisation of the tax. It follows that the entire department, including the Commissioner, is an instrumentality of the State Government. Knowledge of the Sales Tax Officer must, therefore, necessarily be deemed to be knowledge of the Commissioner and if, under the law, the Commissioner will be deemed to have knowledge of the assessment order, no actual service of the assessment order upon him is necessary, nor has any provision been made in .respect of it. If a different view were to be taken it would be open to a Sales Tax Officer not to, serve a copy of the assessment order on the Commissioner for ten or twenty years, It is preposterous to imagine that the period of limitation would remain in abeyance until the Sales Tax Officer chooses to serve, formally, copy of the assessmemt order on the Commissioner. I may. here refer to Secs, 263 and 264 of the Indian. Income Tax Act. So far as the Department is concerned, the period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision is one year from the date of the order, but for the assessee it is one year from the date of communication of the order of assessment. I may. here refer to Secs, 263 and 264 of the Indian. Income Tax Act. So far as the Department is concerned, the period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision is one year from the date of the order, but for the assessee it is one year from the date of communication of the order of assessment. The distinction is not so clear in the Sales Tax Act, but when this distinction is there in the most important taxing statute in the country, it leads to the conclusion that the framers of the Sales Tax Act and the Rules there; under had that distinction in mind and it is for this reason that no provision has been made for service of the assessment order on the Commissioner, though provision has been made for service of the appellate order and the revisional order both on the dealer and on the Commissioner because the appellate and the revising authorities are not limbs of the department but are independent tribunals. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the omission to make a provision for service of the assessment order on the Commissioner, is deliberate and not accidental. 7. Mr. Kamal Narain Singh, learned Standing Counsel, has strongly relied upon the Sub-Divisional Officer v. Raja Srinivasa Prasad Singh, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1164 not cited before Jagdish Sahai, and M. H. Beg, JJ. In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court were called upon to construe Section 343 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. That section reads as follows :: "343. State Government to be a party in the proceedings under Chapters III to V.- (1) The State Government shall be and be deemed to be a party in every proceeding before the Compensation Officer or the Rehabilitation Grants Officer under chapters III to V and every notice to be served or intended to be served on the State Government may be served on the Collector or an authority nominated by the Collector. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the said Chapters or Clause (d) of sub-Sec. (1) of Section 344, the period of limitation of the State Government shall be ninety days from the date of the order appealed against." Because of certain notifications the Sub-Divisional Officer was, for all practical purposes, the 'Collector' and it was argued that no separate notice to the State Government was necessary as the Sub-Divisional Officer represented the State Government. It was argued that notice to the Collector would mean notice to the State Government and it would be illogical for the Sub-Divisional Officer, to serve a notice upon himself. This argument was accepted by this Court, but the Supreme Court did not agree with that view. Their Lordships observed as follows : "It is thus provided by Section 343 that if a notice has to be sent or is intended to be sent to the State Government it shall be sent to the District Collector. No general notice can suffice. Till a notice is sent, the State Government will not be deemed to he served. It is, therefore, quite clear that the State Government ought to have been joined by the objector to the proceedings for enhancement of compensations. It is equally clear that even though not joined the State Government was entitled to a special notice in common with the intermediaries and other persons interested, of the date of the hearing. Since no such intimation was sent the proceedings will not, prima facie, bind the State Government and that in fact is the claim made by the State Government by its applications for the reopening of the proceedings before the Compensation Officer. It is contended that under certain notification all Sub-Divisional Officers; were empowered to discharge the functions of a Collector under the Abolition. Act and all Assistant Collectors were made ex officio Compensation Officers. and. the Compensation Officer having notice, the State Government must be deemed to have notice also. This is not correct. The Compensation Officer acts as a Court and a Court cannot represent a party. A separate notice was necessary.' This case is clearly distinguishable. The ratio of the decision was that the Compensation Officer was acting as a court could not represent party and, therefore, a separate notice was necessary. It is well settled that the Sales Tax Officer is not a court though he acts quasi judicially. A separate notice was necessary.' This case is clearly distinguishable. The ratio of the decision was that the Compensation Officer was acting as a court could not represent party and, therefore, a separate notice was necessary. It is well settled that the Sales Tax Officer is not a court though he acts quasi judicially. See In the matter of Barmukhraj Dulichand, AIR 1928 Calcutta 287 at p. 590 (2) Muppana Somaraju and Varraraju v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, (1964) 51 I.T.R. 131, Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, 1944 I.T.R. 393 and Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 479 at p. 484. 8. There are two cases :-Mannalal Modi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1956 I.T.R. 30, Bihar and Orissa and D. R. Dhanwatay v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1956 I.T.R. 257 respectively in which it has been held that, if a return has been filed and is pending before one Income Tax Officer, all the other Income Tax Officers will be deemed to have knowledge of that return. The framers of the Act and the Rules thereunder clearly were of the view that knowledge of the Sales Tax Officer must be deemed to be knowledge of the entire department, including the Commissioner and, if the Commissioner is presumed to have knowledge of the assessment order, then service upon him must be deemed to be on the date on which the order of assessment was passed. 9. The learned Standing Counsel also relied upon an unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in Sales Tax Reference No. 104 of 1957 decided by Dasai, C. J., and Asthana, J., on 28th of February, 1963. That case has, if I may say so with respect, been rightly distinguished by Jagdish Sahai, J., on the ground that the Bench was seized of a case which arose at a time when there Has no period of limitation provided for filing a revision. 10. For the reasons given above, I answer the first part of the question in the affirmative and the second part of the question in the negative, against the department and in favour of the dealer.