JUDGMENT MISRA, C.J. - The following question has been referred to us for our opinion by the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was right in annulling the assessment for the quarters ending 30th September, 1969, and 31st December, 1969, on the ground that the assessee's turnover did not exceed Rs. 25,000 ?" 2. The question for consideration in this case arose in a reported decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Harekrushna Sahu [1982] 50 STC 180 (App); (1976) 1 CWR 68. Admittedly, with effect from 1st July, 1969, by way of amendment of section 4 of the Act by Orissa Act 15 of 1968, in place of the original amount of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 25,000 was substituted as the amount in exceeding which a trader's liability to be registered as a dealer would accrue. The question arose as to whether, if for a period subsequent to the amending Act the turnover did not exceed Rs. 25,000, there would be liability. Section 4(3) of the Act provides : "Every dealer who has become liable to pay tax under this Act shall continue to be so liable until the expiry of three consecutive years during each of which his gross turnover has failed to exceed .... and such further period after the date of the said expiry as may be prescribed and his liability to pay tax under this Act shall cease on the expiry of the prescribed period : Provided ............" Relying on this provision this Court held in the reported decision that the liability subsisted for the period indicated in the statute notwithstanding the fact that the turnover was less than Rs. 25,000 during the period following the amendment by Orissa Act 15 of 1968. We are of the view that the reasoning given in the reported decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The liability of the assessee must, therefore, subsist for the period in issue notwithstanding the fact that the turnover did not exceed the prescribed minimum limit of Rs. 25,000. No costs. DAS, J. - I agree.