JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. - This is the reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The following question has been referred to us : "Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax was not competent to revise the order of assessment for the period from 1st January, 1963, to 31st December, 1963, passed on 11th October, 1966, after the expiry of two years from the date of passing of the said assessment order by exercising power under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as amended on 1st July, 1965 ?" 2. The respondents, M/s. Associated Dichem Corporation, was a registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the period 1st January, 1963, to 31st December, 1963. For the said period the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice in form 27 for assessment under section 33 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The notice was served on 23rd August, 1966. The assessment order was passed on 11th October, 1966. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax started proceedings for suo motu revision under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, by issuing a notice in form No. 40 on 5th December, 1969. It was served on 10th December, 1969. Thereafter by his order dated 23rd January, 1970, the Assistant Commissioner revised the assessment order. 3. In view of our judgment in Sales Tax Reference No. 27 of 1980 (Siemens India Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1986] 62 STC 40] and for reasons set out therein since the notice of suo motu revision (which was issued on 5th December, 1969, and served on 10th December, 1969) was prior to be amendment of section 57 which came into force on 1st May, 1970. The relevant period of limitation applicable therefore is the period of limitation prescribed under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax as it was in force from 1st July, 1965, to 30th April, 1970. Under the provisions of section 57 during the aforesaid period of the Commissioner could suo motu revise an order within 5 years from the date of the order. In the present case the assessment order is of 11th October, 1966. Under the provisions of section 57 during the aforesaid period of the Commissioner could suo motu revise an order within 5 years from the date of the order. In the present case the assessment order is of 11th October, 1966. The notice of revision is of 5th December, 1969, and the order in revision is passed on 23rd January, 1970. The revision proceedings were completed within 5 years of the assessment order and even before the 3rd amendment of section 57 came into operation. The revision proceedings are, therefore, within the period of limitation as in existence at the relevant time. The amended provisions of section 57 which came into force on 1st May, 1970, have no application in this case. 4. In the premises the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the department. The respondents to pay to the applicant costs of the reference. Reference answered in the negative.