Judgment :- SETHURAMAN, J. In this revision petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu under S. 38 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959, the only pointed raised is whether the assessee is eligible for coming within the scope of S. 7 of the Act. The assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 36, 415-66 P. and Rs. 30, 218-16 P. respectively for the year 1971-72. The Asstt. CTO determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 66, 634-62 P. and Rs. 60437-92P respectively due to certain defects noticed in the account. He made an addition of 100 per cent to the book turnover. On appeal, the AAC gave reduction to the extent 50 per cent in the addition made to the book turnover. The result was that over and above the book turnover 50 per cent thereof stood added so as to arrive at the taxable turnover. The assessee disputed this addition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal reduced the turnover to Rs. 45, 328-44 P. 2. The assessee, in the course of a reply to the pre-assessment notice dt. 12th November, 1972, opted to be assessed under S. 7 of the Act. The AO rejected the claim on the ground that R. 15(4B) of the Rule framed under the Act had been deleted as per a notification dt. 27th September, 1971 published in the Gazette on 1st December, 1971 and that the necessary application should have been made even at the time of the submission of the A-I return itself. The AAC, on appeal also negatived the assessee's claim for assessment under S. 7. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee agitated this point and the Tribunal held that the option could be exercised at any time before assessment and therefore, the assessee was eligible for being brought within the scope of S. 7. It is this conclusion that the assessee can be brought within the scope of S. 7, that is now challenged by the State in the present revision petition. 3. Sec. 3 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959, provides for levy of tax one sales or purchases of goods with reference to persons whose total turnover for a year was not less than the amount specified in the provision. 3. Sec. 3 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959, provides for levy of tax one sales or purchases of goods with reference to persons whose total turnover for a year was not less than the amount specified in the provision. Sec. 7 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1) of S. 3, every dealer whose turnover was not less than Rs. 15, 000 but not more than Rs. 75, 000 may, at his option, instead of paying the tax in accordance with the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 3, pay tax at certain specified rates as set out in the said provision. Specified rates as set out in the said provision. Sec. 7(2) provides that any dealer who estimated his turnover for a year to be not more than Rs. 75, 000 may apply to the assessing authority to be permitted to pay tax under that provision and on being so permitted, he would pay the tax due in advance during the year in monthly or prescribed instalments and for that purpose had to submit such returns i such manner as may be prescribed. Sec. 7(3) provides that the tax paid under sub-s. (2) shall be subject to such adjustment as may be prescribed on the completion of the final assessment in the manner prescribed. Sec. 12 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed by the assessing authority. It provides that the assessment of a dealer shall be on the basis of the prescribed return relating to the turnover submitted in the prescribed manner within the prescribed period. If no return is submitted within the prescribed period or if the return submitted was incomplete or incorrect, then the assessing authority had power to assess the dealer to the best of its judgment. From a perusal of the provisions of S. 3, 7 and 12, the following position emerges. Sec. 3 prescribes the general rate of tax. Sec. 7 provides a confessional rate of tax in the case of persons whose turnover is below a particular limit and who exercises the option to come thereunder. Such dealer who come within the scope of S. 7 may be said to be small dealer. Sec. 12 provides for the assessment on the basis of a return. The return contemplated under S. 12 would be different from the option that is execrable under S. 7. Such dealer who come within the scope of S. 7 may be said to be small dealer. Sec. 12 provides for the assessment on the basis of a return. The return contemplated under S. 12 would be different from the option that is execrable under S. 7. With this back-ground we have to consider the rules that have been framed under the Act. 4. Rule 9(1) provides that every dealer liable to pay tax under s. 3(2) or S. 4 or S. 5 shall submit within thirty days of the commencement of his business his estimated total and taxable turnover for the first twelve months of his business. It may be seen that r. 9(1) does not deal with persons coming within the scope of S. 7. There is a proviso which applied to those persons and that states that a dealer who opts to pay tax at compounded rates under S. 7 shall submit a return in Form AA. Rule 9(5), as it was in force before 27th September, 1971 provided that the option to pay the tax at compounded rats provided for in S. 7 had to be exercised by a dealer by submitting an application to the assessing authority at the time the estimated return prescribed in sub-r. (2) and (4) of that rule were filed i.e. within thirty days of commencing the business. Rule 10 provided that if the assessing authority was satisfied with the return submitted, he should fix provisionally, on the basis of the return, the annual tax or taxes payable at the rates specified, among others, in S. 7 of the Act. Rule 11 provides for the best judgment assessment in cases where the dealer had not submitted the return under-r. 9. That would also apply to cases coming within the scope of S. 7. Rule 15(1) provides that every dealer liable to submit a return under R. 9, unless he had elected to be assessed by the method described in R. 18, had, on or before the 1st May in every year, to submit to the assessing authority of the are in which his principal place of business is situated, a return in Form A-I showing the actual total and taxable turnover in the preceding year. In the proviso to sub-r. (1) of R. 15 it was provided that a dealer who opted to pay tax at compounded rates under s. 7 had to submit a return in Form AA-1. Sub-r. (4B) of this rule relates to cases where a dealer who was eligible to pay tax at compounded rates laid down in S. 7 was desirous of being assessed on a provisional basis from the commencement of any year, at the rates laid down in that section. Sub-r. 4B, which was in force upto 27th September, 1971, but which was deleted subsequently, related to those cases were a deal who was eligible for payment of tax at the rates laid down in s. 7, had not exercised his option to being assessed under that section as provided in sub-s. 4A of R. 15 in respect of nay year. In such a case, such dealer, if he wanted to avail himself to pay the tax at the compounded rates, had to exercise his option to be assessed at the time of submitting the return prescribed in sub-r. 2 and 3 of r. 14, or at any time before the final assessment for the year. The option once exercised under that sub-rule was to be final in respect of that particular year. 5. The learned Addl. Government Pleader submitted that the dealer, in the present case, had no power to exercise his option beyond the 1st May of the relevant year. The sub-r. 4B of R. 15 had been omitted from 27th September, 1971, according to him, the dealer had no power exercise his option after the 1st May, of that relevant year. In the present case, in his submission, the option should have been exercised before 1st May, 1971 and the option, not having been so exercised, could not have been exercised subsequently. 6. We have considered this question in T.C. No. 276 of 1974 in which we pronounced judgment yesterday. We are again examining the contentions here only because the learned Add. Government Pleader felt that some aspects of the rules had not been brought out earlier. After hearing further arguments we see no reason to reconsider our conclusion. We have held in that case that as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in STO vs. Abraham the rules could not fix the time-limit for the exercise of the option. After hearing further arguments we see no reason to reconsider our conclusion. We have held in that case that as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in STO vs. Abraham the rules could not fix the time-limit for the exercise of the option. A provision for limitation could only be provided in a statute. If the legislature intended to delegate powers to fix the period of Limitation, it should have done so by appropriate words. The expression, "in such manner" having been understood as not including a power to impose a period of limitation, it would follow that the rules could not have prescribed any period of limitation for the purpose of exercising the option available in S. 7. If no period could be prescribed, then the result would be that the dealer or the assessee would have to exercise the option within a reasonable time. In view of the provisions contained in sub-r. (4B) itself, it is clear that the rule making authority also considered the exercise of the option before assessment as reasonable. We therefore, considered that it would be reasonable and proper if the exercise of the option was made before the assessment. In the present case, as the assessee had exercised his option even before the assessment, the ST authorities were not justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for being brought within the scope of S. 7. In our opinion, the Tribunal acted rightly in interfering with the order of the AAC in so far as he had decided against the assessee on this point. The Tax revision Case accordingly fails and is dismissed. But, there will be no order as to costs.