ORDER R.K, Anand, F.C.,—-The instant revision petition under section 9 (2) of Central Sales Tax Act read with section 31 (4) of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, has been filed by M/s. Synthetic Processors Pvt. Ltd., Baroti District Solan against the order dated 7-10-1983 passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh in respect of the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 Although five separate revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioner, the facts involved In all the revision petitions are the same and arc directed against the order of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner Therefore, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to take them up together for disposal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are, that the petitioner is a private company engaged in the manufacture and the sale of PVC material and is registered as a dealer under the HP General Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, The petitioner, under the mistaken belief that it was liable to pay Central Sales Tax, deposited the tax along with the returns of these five assessment years However, no tax under the Central Sales Tax could be collected on the Inter-State made by the petitioner during the period, in view of the order passed by the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in C. W. P. No. 94 of 1977 Himachal Conductors Pvt. Ltd and another v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioners {South Zone), Himachal Pradesh, This order had not been modified or set aside by the Supreme Court. In fact, S.L.P by the State against this order was rejected by the Supreme Court and therefore was binding on the parties. The petitioner having been assessed to the Central Sales Tax on the Inter-State Saks vide assessment order dated 2-8-1978 filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (South Zone) It was held by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner that the levy of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act was illegal vide his order dated 31-3-19-3 This order was challenged by the Assessing Authority in a revision petition before the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The grounds taken in the revision petition by the Assessing Authority were that the petitioners time barred appeal had been entertained by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and moreover, the appeal was not signed by a person duly authorised by the petitioner company. The Excise Taxation Commissioner sec-aside the order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner on the ground that an appeal which was barred by limitation had been entertained by him and entertaining a time barred appeal was bad in law. According to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner the period of limitation started running from the date when the orders of assessment were announced. It was further held by him that as on these days the manager of the petitioner Company was present and thus the petitioner was aware of the assessment order and could have preferred an appeal within the stipulated period. He also held that the memorandum of appeal had not been signed by person authorised to do so. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Devinder Gupta, Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and perused the court record, The contention of the petitioner is that the appeal proffered before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner was not time barred as the period of limitation would run from the date the order passed by the Assessing Authority was supplied to the assessee in terms of the provision of section 30 (1) of the H. P. General Sales Tax Act and Rule 73 (i) framed there under, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that according to the provisions of section 30 (i) and Rule 73 (1) a certified copy of the assessment order along with a copy of the notice was required to be supplied to the petitioner by the appropriate Assessing Authority and the period of limitation would run from the date the certified copy of the assessment order was received by the petitioner and not from the date when the order was announced by the Assessing authority even through at the time of announcement of the order, the petitioners representative was present, The argument of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner was that the appeal preferred by the petitioner could not have dean entertained by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner as these were barred by limitation. 4. 4. The main point for determination is whether the appeals prefer red before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner were within the period of limitation as contemplated in the H P. General Sales Tax Act, Section 30(1), which gives the right to appeal an aggrieved dealer reads as under :— "Any dealer aggrieved by any notice issued under sub-section (7) of section 14 or by any order passed by the Assessing Authority or by an officer in-charge of the check post or barrier under this Act, may in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority within sixty days from the date of receiving such notice or order". . Plain reading of the section indicates that the period of limitation should be computed from the date of receipt of a notice or an order by the dealer The question that arises is as to when the impugned order was received by the petitioner. Rule 73 of the H. P. General Sales Tax is relevant in this context as the answer to the question depends on it and is reproduced below ; "(1) A certified copy of the assessment order along with a copy of the notice as prescribed in Rule 47 shall be supplied to the dealer by the appropriate Assessing Authority. (2) Immediately on passing an order in appeal or revision, its certified copy shall be supplied to the appellant or petitioner, as a case may be, by the authority concerned". From the wording of the section 30 (1) and Rule 73, it appears that a certified copy of the assessment order has to be supplied to the dealer by the Assessing Authority. The word "shall in rule 73 implies that it is mandatory for the Assessing Authority to supply to the dealer a certified copy of the order. It is a madatory to supply a certified copy of the order and the Assessing Authority has no discretion or option in the matter. In other words, whether a dealer applies for a certified copy or not, both the assessment notice as well as the assessment order have necessarily to be given to the dealer by the assessing authority. This appears to be the correct interpretation of the Rule 73 which is to be read with the section 10 (i) of the Act itself. In other words, whether a dealer applies for a certified copy or not, both the assessment notice as well as the assessment order have necessarily to be given to the dealer by the assessing authority. This appears to be the correct interpretation of the Rule 73 which is to be read with the section 10 (i) of the Act itself. In section 30 (1) also the word used is “date of receiving of such notice or order". It, therefore, follows that the assessee will receive a certified copy of the notice or order when it is supplied to him by the assessing authority and the period of limitation would start running from the date when it is so received by him. In other words, in terms of the provisions of the section 30(1) and Rule 73, the Assessing Authority is bound to supply a copy of the assessment notice and the order period of limitation would run from the date when the notice and the orders are received by him. In this case also the period of limitation will commence from the date on which the certified copy of the assessment order was received by the assessee, 5. This conclusion that the period of limitation would run from the date the assessment notice or order is supplied by the assessing authority and is receiving by the assessee is also supported by the ruling contained in the case of Machine Tools Corporation v. The State, reported in Revenue Law Reporter, 1974 page 493. While defining the scope of period of limitation for appeal it was held by the Sales Tax Tribunal of Punjab that announcement of order was not adequate communication of the order and the date of delivery of the order should be deemed to be the date from which the period of limitation would run. This interpretation of similar provisions contained in the Punjab General Sales Tax Act was given in a Sales Tax Appeal by the Sales Tax Tribunal of Punjab. It is thus apparent that the period of limitation would run from the date on which the order was supplied to the assessee and it was received by him. This interpretation of similar provisions contained in the Punjab General Sales Tax Act was given in a Sales Tax Appeal by the Sales Tax Tribunal of Punjab. It is thus apparent that the period of limitation would run from the date on which the order was supplied to the assessee and it was received by him. Although in different States, different words defining the period of limitation have been used in the enactments pertaining to the levy of Sales Tax such as date of service, date of communication and date of receiving of the notice or order, the interpretation of these words by the Courts generally has been that more passing an order or its announcement does not constitute or service or communication of its contexts to the assessee. Service or communication or receipt of an order by the assessee means something distinct from the passing of an order of assessment and suggests an act which follows the mere passing of the order. It has been construed to imply formal communication of the order after it has been passed on the termination of the proceedings so that the assessee if he is aggrieved may seek redress by prefer ring an appeal or revision In short, the above interpretation of the words used in the H. P. General Sales Tax Act is consistent with he judicial pronouncements on the subject and on the basis of this interpretation of the petitioners appeal is held to be within the period of limitation as contemplated by the provisions of the. Act and the rules framed there under. In this case the assessment order was passed on 8-2-1978 and according to the petitioner, its copy was received by him on 8-3-1982 and the appeal was filed on 6-5-1982. In other words, the appeal was within time. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner before whom the appeal was filed rightly gave a finding that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. The finding given by him is based on a correct interpretation of the provisions of section 30 of the H.P. General Sales Tax Act and Rule 73 framed there under. 6. As regards the other objection of the Department that the appeal was not signed by an authorised person, no finding need be given as the objection was dropped by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner at the time of hearing of arguments. 6. As regards the other objection of the Department that the appeal was not signed by an authorised person, no finding need be given as the objection was dropped by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner at the time of hearing of arguments. Nevertheless, the petitioner produced the minute book wherein Shri CX Aggarwal had been authorised by the Board of Directors to represent the petitioner before the Sales Tax authorities. The other points raised by the petitioner are not relevant and need not to be discussed here as in the light of the order of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed in CW.P. 94 of 1977, Himachal, Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the question of liability of the petitioner to pay the Central Sales Tax has already been determined and decided in favour of the assessee and the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner had also held that the petitioner was not liable to pay and moreover the State Government also was not competent to levy or collect the Central Sales Tax on Inter-State sales made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. 7. Since the same question of limitation and similar points are involved in the assessment orders for the years 1973-74, 1974-75 1975-76 and 1976-77, the revision petitions preferred against the orders of the Commissioner Excise and Taxation are disposed of by this very order. A copy of the order will be placed on each of the revision petitions No. 3/83, 3/83, 4/S3 and5/83. Similar grounds have been urged in the revision petitions preferred on behalf of M/s Kalima Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and M/Himachal Plastics Pvt. Ltd. These revision petitions Nos, 8/83 for the Assessment year 1972-73 and 9/83 for the year 1973-74 filed by M/s Kalima Plastics Pvt Ltd. and 6/83 and 7/83 for the years 1972-73 and 1974-75 respectively filed by M/s Himachal Plastics Pvt. Ltd. are also disposed of by the above order. A copy of the order will be placed on each of these files Revision allowed.