JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by A. P. Ravani, J. - This reference is under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, at the instance of the Revenue. The opponent is a dealer registered under the Act. For the Samvat Year 2030 (October 27, 1973 to November 13, 1974) assessment order was passed on December 3, 1975, by the appropriate Sales Tax Officer. On May 3, 1976, surprise visit was made by the sales tax authorities to the business premises of the opponent. Certain books of accounts and materials were seized. On the basis of the seized material reassessment order was passed on July 30, 1977. The opponent-assessee filed appeal against the said reassessment order which was pending till April 25, 1979. 2. After the reassessment order was passed on July 30, 1977 and before the first appeal which was pending was decided on December 9, 1977, a notice was issued by the Sales Tax Officer for second reassessment. The opponent-assessee submitted reply to the notice and, inter alia, contended that the first appeal was pending against the reassessment order passed on July 30, 1977 and, therefore, the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate second reassessment. However, the Sales Tax Officer passed reassessment order on March 14, 1978. Against this order the opponent-assessee preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeal), Division II, Ahmedabad. The appeal was dismissed the appellate authority. The opponent-assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before the Tribunal two points were raised : (1) During the pendency of the appeal against the first reassessment order the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice for further/second reassessment. (2) Even if it is assumed that the Sales Tax Officer had jurisdiction to issue such notice, he could not have passed reassessment order during the pendency of the appeal against the first reassessment order. At the most he could have made report to the appellate authority which could have dealt with the matter while hearing the appeal. 4. The Tribunal did not decide the first point raised before it. As far as the second point is concerned, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee holding that the second proviso to section 44 was applicable. Therefore the Tribunal held that the second reassessment made by the Sales Tax Officer was not legal and valid. 4. The Tribunal did not decide the first point raised before it. As far as the second point is concerned, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee holding that the second proviso to section 44 was applicable. Therefore the Tribunal held that the second reassessment made by the Sales Tax Officer was not legal and valid. Thus the Tribunal allowed the second appeal. The Revenue submitted application for making reference to this High Court. The application was made for referring four different questions. However, the Tribunal has referred only one question which reads as follows : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the second proviso to section 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, will have its clear application in the case of reassessment, more particularly in the case of second reassessment when the first appeal against the first reassessment order and not first appeal against the original assessment order was pending ? 5. Section 44 of the Act provides for reassessment of the turnover escaping assessment. In the instant case, for the period in question, i.e., Samvat Year 2030, assessment was made on December 3, 1975. Therefore on the surprise visit on May 3, 1976 and pursuant to the search and seizure of the books of accounts and other materials, reassessment order was passed on July 30, 1977. The reassessment proceedings so initiated cannot be said to have come to an end when the appeal against the reassessment order was pending. During the pendency of the appeal or revision, as the case may be, if further material comes to the notice of the Sales Tax Officer or any other appropriate authority of the Sales Tax Department, the officer or authority concerned is not powerless. Such officer or authority is required to follow the procedure as laid down under second proviso to section 44. Such officer or authority is required to follow the procedure as laid down under second proviso to section 44. Second proviso to section 44 reads as follows : "Provided further that where in respect of such assessment, proceedings are pending in appeal or revision, the appropriate appellate or revisional authority under this act may, on its own motion or on the report of the Commissioner after giving the dealer concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such order as it deems fit :" In view of this proviso, the appropriate officer or authority of the Sales Tax Department can make report to the superior forum before which appeal or revision may be pending. This proviso is abundantly clear. We are in agreement with the reasons given and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. If other view is taken, there would be no end to the assessment proceedings. Every now and then the Sales Tax Officer or any other officer or authority would be in a position to intermeddle with the assessment proceedings. Such actions may some times help the department, but in all probability it is likely to cause harassment to the assessee. There is no reason to adopt any other interpretation except the interpretation as canvassed on behalf of the assessee and which has been accepted by the Tribunal. 6. In above view of the matter we answer the question in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly, with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.