Judgment Satyeshwar Roy, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated April 21, 1987, issued by respondent No. 3 as contained in annexure 2 by which it has directed the petitioner to produce the entire records in respect of the stock transfers made by it. 2. Admittedly, assessment for the year 1976-77, on the entire turnover of the petitioner both under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (the Finance Act) was completed by respondent No. 3 on February 19, 1983. The petitioner being aggrieved with part of the assessment order, i.e., with regard to disallowance of rebate claimed by the petitioner and levy of sales tax at the rate of 10 per cent (ten per cent) on sales of declared goods to unregistered dealers, filed an appeal. 3. The appellate authority by order dated May 25, 1985, held that the petitioner was entitled to rebate. It corrected some mistakes in calculation and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for passing a fresh order keeping in view the provision of giving rebate. Copy of this appellate order was sent to the petitioner and the assessing authority on June 8, 1985. There is no dispute that the copy of the order was received by the assessing authority on that date. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of disposing of the matter in terms of the direction of the appellate authority, respondent No. 3 on April 21, 1987, issued a notice to the petitioner which is contained in annexure 2. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 was bound to pass final order keeping in view the direction of the appellate authority and it had no jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of the enquiry for passing final order. It is also the case of the petitioner that if the assessing authority was of the opinion that turnover of the petitioner had escaped assessment, the assessing authority could have in view of Sec.19 of the Finance Act reopened the matter within eight years of the expiry of the period in case of concealment by a dealer and within six years in other cases. According to the petitioner since the period in question was 1976-77, recourse to Sec.19 could have been taken up to March 31, 1985. According to the petitioner since the period in question was 1976-77, recourse to Sec.19 could have been taken up to March 31, 1985. According to the respondents, for issuing a notice under Sec.33 for production of books of account there is no question of limitation and this can be done either before the assessment or after the assessment. 5. It appears from the brief that after receipt of notice as contained in annexure 2, the petitioner filed an application as contained in annexure 3, in which, inter alia, it stated that the petitioner had not been informed for what purpose the books of account were required. It was also stated that since the appellate authority did not give any direction to make further enquiry, the books of account cannot be called for. The petitioner was informed by annexure 4 that its application, i.e., annexure 3, had been rejected. Neither annexure 2 nor annexure 4 discloses under what provision the assessing authority issued notice to the petitioner for production of books of account. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the assessing officer while assessing for the year 1976-77, has been misguided due to concealment of facts made by the petitioner which resulted in huge loss to the State exchequer. 6. It is thus clear that by issuing the notice as contained in annexure 2, the assessing authority was exercising its power under Sec.19 of the Act. In the circumstances of this case, the assessing authority could have served notice on the petitioner within eight years of the expiry of the assessment year, i.e., 1976-77. Since the notice was not served on the petitioner by March 31, 1985, respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter under Sec.19 of the Finance Act If it had no jurisdiction to do so, it had no jurisdiction to ask for production of the books of account under Sec.33 of the Finance Act. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the opinion that respondent No.3 was bound to confine itself to the direction of the appellate authority. That being the position, the petitioner must succeed in this writ petition. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and annexure 2 is quashed.