ORDER K.M. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notice dated 4-3-1983 (Annexure-C) for re-assessment Under Section 19(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (in short, the "Act") and the order dated 25-1-1983 (Annexure-D) issued and passed by the Additional Sales Tax Officer, Jabalpur (in short, the "Addl. S.T.O."), against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was assessed to tax for the period between 11-11-1977 to 31-10-1978 on a gross turnover of Rs. 3,15,000/- by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Jabalpur (in short, the "Asstt. S.T.O.") by his assessment order dated 25-10-1979. Subsequently on the basis of a report of the Flying Squad, the Asstt. S.T.O. initiated re-assessment proceedings Under Section 19(1) of the Act and directed issuance of notice for the purpose on 4-7-1980. Notice (Annexure-B) was served on the petitioner and it made appearance before the Asstt. S.T.O. on 28-7-1980 through its proprietor Shri Prem Chand Jain. The re-assessment proceedings continued before the Asstt. S.T.O. till 1-11-1981 when they were transferred to the Addl. S. T. O. on the ground that the proposed escaped turnover would exceed the limits of his (i.e. Asstt. S.T.O.'s) pecuniary jurisdiction. The case was received on transfer in the office of the Addl. S.T.O. on 7-7-1982 and the re-assessment proceedings, thereafter, continued in his office for a considerable time. The order-sheets filed as Annexure-E by the petitioner would show that on 17-1-1983 the account books of the petitioner were partly checked and the case was adjourned to 25-1-1983 for completing the remaining scrutiny. It appears that on 25-1-1983, an objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner to the continuance of the re-assessment proceedings on the ground of limitation. It was urged that Under Section 19(1) of the Act, the re-assessment was required to be made within a period of 2 calendar years from the commencement of such proceedings, but in the present case it was not so made on or before 31-12-1982, when the period of 2 calendar years expired from 4-7-1980, i.e. the date of initiation of re-assessment proceedings. The objection was overruled by the Addl. S.T.O. by his impugned order dated 25-1-1983 (Annexure-D) and, thereafter, he issued the impugned fresh notice dated 4-3-1983 (Annexure-C) for re-assessment Under Section 19(1) of the Act. The objection was overruled by the Addl. S.T.O. by his impugned order dated 25-1-1983 (Annexure-D) and, thereafter, he issued the impugned fresh notice dated 4-3-1983 (Annexure-C) for re-assessment Under Section 19(1) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the said relief. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act and the relevant clause (c) in column 3 at serial No. 7 of the Table given in Rule 68 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (in short, the "Rules"), providing for delegation of Commissioner's powers and submitted that in the present case the Asstt. S.T.O. had powers to initiate the re-assessment proceedings Under Section 19(1) of the Act and, therefore, in the absence of provisions for re-initiation of re-assessment proceedings or for fresh notice of re-assessment Under Section 19(1) of the Act after transfer of a case from the office of the Asstt. S.T.O. to the office of the Addl. S.T.O., the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Asstt. S.T.O. ought to have been completed within a period of 2 calendar years from the date of their initiation. That having not been done, the re-assessment proceedings could not be continued after the expiry of the said period of 2 calendar years. On the contrary, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the Asstt. S.T.O. could not have initiated the re-assessment proceedings for want of jurisdiction and, therefore, the period of 2 calendar years could not be counted from the date of initiation of proceedings by the Asstt. S.T.O. According to him, the subsequent notice Under Section 19(1) of the Act issued by the Addl. S.T.O. was within 5 calendar years from the date of the order of assessment and, therefore, the re-assessment proceedings could be continued and completed within a period of 2 calendar years from the date of the subsequent notice Under Section 19(1) of the Act. 4. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions, it would be proper to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act and those of Rule 68 of the Rules. 4. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions, it would be proper to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act and those of Rule 68 of the Rules. Section 19(1) reads as follows : - "Whereas an assessment has been made under the Act repealed by Section 52 and if for any reasons sale or purchase of goods chargeable to tax under this Act or any Act repealed by Section 52 during any period has been under-assessed or has escaped assessment or assessed, at a lower rate or any deduction has been wrongly made therefrom, the Commissioner may at any time within 5 calendar years from the date of order of assessment, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after making such enquiry as he considers necessary, proceed in such manner as may be prescribed to re-assess within a period of two calendar years from the commencement of such proceedings, the tax payable by such dealer and the Commissioner may, where the omission leading to such re-assessment is attributable to the dealer, direct that the dealer shall pay, by way of penalty in addition to the amount of tax so assessed, a sum not exceeding that amount." Rule 68 and the entries of clause (c) in column 3 at serial No. 7 of the Table at the relevant time were as follows : - "The Commissioner shall not delegate any powers other than those enumerated below, in respect of the (section/rules) mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, nor shall he delegate any power thereunder specified in column (3) of the said Table to any officer below the rank or contrary to the conditions specified and mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (4) thereof: - Serial Section/ Description Designation of offier No. rules of powers. and conditions of delegation. (1) (2) (3) (4) 7. 18, 19 and To make an assessment 22. or re-assessment of or to impose penalty or grant further time to pay such tax and/or penalty or to allow the payment of tax and/or penalty in instalments and to exercise all ther powers Under Section 18, 19 and 22,-- (a)......... (b)......... (c) in respect of a Assistant Sales Tax dealer whose gross Officer (subject to turn over of the year. (b)......... (c) in respect of a Assistant Sales Tax dealer whose gross Officer (subject to turn over of the year. the condition that if Proceeding the period at any stage, during of assessment does not any assessment pro- exceed rupees four lakhs cedding in respect of or who has no turn over any dealer the liable to assessment Assistant Sales Tax for the period preceding Officer finds that the the period of assessment, turn-over of such dealer during the year of assessment has exceeded or is likely to exceed rupees four lakhs, he shall not omplete the assessment proceeding but shall submit the proceeding to the Sales TaxOfficer having jurisdiction over the dealer. 5. A perusal of the delegation of powers of Commissioner mentioned in Rule 68 would show that the Asstt. S.T.O. was contempt to make an assessment or re-assessment of tax in respect of a dealer whose gross turnover if the year preceding the period of assessment did not exceed rupees 4 lakhs. As the petitioner's preceding year turn over admittedly did not exceed rupees 4 lakhs, the Asstt. S.T.O. had jurisdiction to initiate re-assessment proceedings Under Section 19(1) of the Act against the petitioner. Accordingly the initiation of proceedings on 4-7-1980 and issuance of notice Under Section 19(1) of the Act by him could not be said to be without Jurisdiction and, therefore, there was no necessity for issuance of any fresh notice Under Section 19(1) of the Act after the case was being transferred to the Addl. S.T.O; This appears to be the reason why after the transfer of the case to his file, the Addl. S.T.O. did not consider it necessary to issue fresh notice Under Section 19(1) against the petitioner soon after receipt of the case on transfer. On the contrary he continued the proceedings and also examined the account books of the petitioner on 17-1-1983 and adjourned the case to 25-1-1983 for further examination of the petitioner's account books in pursuance of the earlier notice Under Section 19(1) issued by the Asstt. S.T.O. It was only when it was pointed out on 25-1-1983 that the proceedings for re-assessment could not be continued because of the bar of limitation that the Addl. S.T.O. decided to issue fresh notice Under Section 19(1) of the Act and also served the petitioner with such notice, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. S.T.O. It was only when it was pointed out on 25-1-1983 that the proceedings for re-assessment could not be continued because of the bar of limitation that the Addl. S.T.O. decided to issue fresh notice Under Section 19(1) of the Act and also served the petitioner with such notice, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. Now if the re-assessment proceedings were lawfully commenced on 4-7-1980, it was incumbent on the Addl. S.T.O. to complete the proceedings by making re-assessment within a period of 2 calendar years from 4-7-1980. However, this was not done within this period of limitation and, therefore, the re-assessment proceedings were liable to be dropped. For this reason, the impugned order dated 25-1-1983 (Annexure-D) passed by the Addl. S.T.O. i.e. the respondent No. 1, deserves to be quashed. 6. The impugned subsequent notice dated 4-3-1983 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondent No. 1, the Addl. S.T.O. although within the period of 5 calendar years from the date of the original assessment, was misconceived and without jurisdiction. The reason is simple. Section 19(1) does not contemplate re-initiation of re-assessment proceedings or issuance of fresh notice for re-assessment. If such power of re-initiation or issuance of fresh notice for re-assessment is inferred in Section 19(1) of the Act, it would result in arming the taxing authorities with powers to renovate the proceedings of re-assessment on their failure to make re-assessment within 2 calendar years from the date of commencement of such proceedings, in case they found the period of 5 calendar years prescribed Under Section 19(1) of the Act for re-opening the case had not expired. For all these reasons, the impugned notice dated 4-3-1983 (Annexure-C) for re-assessment issued by the respondent No. 1 also deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result, this petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The impugned notice dated 4-3-1983 (Annexure-C) for re-assessment Under Section 19(1) of the Act and the impugned order dated 25-1-1983 (Annexure-D) issued and passed by the respondent No. 1, the Addl. S.T.O., Jabalpur, are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner.