JUDGMENT BAKTHAVATSALAM, J. - This tax revision is preferred against the order of the Tribunal affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, dismissing in limine a revision petition filed by the petitioner invoking the suo motu powers of revision under section 32 of the Act. For the assessment year 1976-77, the petitioner was assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 7,48,131, the petitioner being a dealer in jewellery. This order of assessment was passed on July 15, 1977. This Court, in Nataraja Chettiar & Company v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 49 STC 53 by an order dated September 30, 1980, held in favour of the petitioner that the turnover is not assessable under section 7-A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Relying on this judgment of this Court, the petitioner filed a petition under section 32 invoking the revisional powers of the Deputy Commissioner on June 15, 1981. This was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner relying upon a judgment of this Court in Andal Sweet Stall and Tiffin Dining Hall v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981] 48 STC 551. This was taken on appeal by the petitioner and the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner holding that the petitioner cannot take advantage of a judgment pronounced in court long after the expiry of period of limitation. Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the assessment year in this case being 1976-77 and the assessment order passed on July 15, 1977, the petition filed on June 15, 1981 falls within the limitation prescribed for invoking suo motu revisional powers under section 32 of the Act. Learned counsel also points out that a Full Bench of this Court has held that the Deputy Commissioner is obliged to exercise the suo motu powers of revision when it is also being invoked by an assessee. According to the dicta of the Full Bench of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have considered the case on merits. So also, the order of the Tribunal affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner is erroneous in law. Mrs. According to the dicta of the Full Bench of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have considered the case on merits. So also, the order of the Tribunal affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner is erroneous in law. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) draws our attention to the fact that the question has been referred to a Full Bench of this Court, meaning thereby that this Court need not interfere with the tax case at this stage. We have considered the arguments of Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the Revenue. We have no hesitation in holding, on the facts and circumstances of this case, that the dicta laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Arunachalam Pillai and Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 45 STC 109 applies in all fours to the facts of this case. Here is a case, where the assessment order has been passed for the assessment year 1976-77 on July 15, 1977. When a judgment was delivered by this Court in favour of the assessee in 1980, the petitioner sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 of the Act by filing a petition on June 15, 1981. So, in our view, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. The Deputy Commissioner has to consider the facts of the case and decide the issue on merits. May be the issue has been concluded by the judgment of this Court. But, unfortunately the Deputy Commissioner has not gone into the merits of the case. He decided it in limine on some other ground. In our view, this is entirely wrong. Both the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal have sought assistance from the judgment of this Court in Andal Sweet Stall and Tiffin Dining Hall v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981] 48 STC 551, which, in our opinion, is not applicable to the facts of this case. That was a case, where an appeal was preferred along with the petition to excuse the delay. The reason given for not condoning the delay was that the judgment of court was pronounced long after expiry of a period of limitation. That was a case, where an appeal was preferred along with the petition to excuse the delay. The reason given for not condoning the delay was that the judgment of court was pronounced long after expiry of a period of limitation. In such circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in dismissing a tax case in limine held that the assessee cannot take advantage of a judgment delivered subsequently for condonation of the delay in filing an appeal. In our view, this judgment is not relevant at all with regard to the issue before us. That apart, even under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Deputy Commissioner has got the power to touch an order of assessment within a period of five years, after the passing of the order. In this case, the assessment order has been passed on July 15, 1977 and the petitioner has filed the petition under section 32 of the Act on June 15, 1981. On the ground that the limitation has not expired, for the revenue has got the right to touch the order, we do not think that the assessee can be denied of that benefit. On this ground also, in our view, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law. The tax revision case is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.