ORDER S. Rajendra Babu, J. - This petition is directed against the initiation of assessment proceeding by the issue of pre-assessment notice as per annexure "C". It is the case of the petitioner that for the year ending with 30th April, 1988, he filed the annual return for 12 months on 30th May, 1988 showing a nil return. It is urged that the pre-assessment notice was issued on 8th September, 1991 and it is barred by limitation in view of section 12(5) of the Act. In contesting this contention the learned Government Pleader urged that in computing the period of limitation for assessment under section 12(5) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, the time during which the assessment had been deferred in any case by the Commissioner for the reasons recorded by him should be excluded and states that such an order had been made on 26th March, 1991 on the ground that the file had been transferred to the first respondent in December, 1990. We will assume for the purpose of argument that the facts stated by the Government Pleader to be correct. Even so the question that arises for consideration is the normal period of limitation prescribed under section 12(5) of the Act is a period of 3 years from the date of the return on which the return under sub-section (1) had been submitted by the assessee for that year and certain exceptions thereto are listed under the proviso thereunder. In a given case or class of cases it is open to the Commissioner for the reasons to be recorded in writing to defer the cases for a particular period and such period shall not be included in computing the period of limitation as provided under section 12(5) of the Act. But that power cannot be exercised arbitrarily by the Commissioner and it must be for good reasons. Every authority that exercises any power administrative or quasi-judicial or judicial cannot make orders which are arbitrary for the same is anathema to article 14 of the Constitution as has been explained in various decisions of the Supreme Court including in the decision rendered in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 515. Every authority that exercises any power administrative or quasi-judicial or judicial cannot make orders which are arbitrary for the same is anathema to article 14 of the Constitution as has been explained in various decisions of the Supreme Court including in the decision rendered in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 515. Therefore the question that arises for consideration is whether in the present case whether the Commissioner should have exercised the power or not and whether any notice should have been given to the petitioner before making the order of deferment. There is no material forthcoming to show before making the order any notice had been issued to the petitioner nor any communication thereto after the order was made. In the circumstances, I must proceed on the basis that no notice has been issued to the petitioner before making an order of deferment as contemplated under section 12(6) of the Act. It is well-settled that when a right of a party is affected even though the provisions of law may not provide for issue of notice, in order to comply with the principles of natural justice, must issue notice. This proposition of law is laid down in several decisions including in the case of C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC). When the period of 3 years expires as provided under section 12(5) of the Act a valuable right accrues to the petitioner cannot be disputed. If that is so before altering that position it is but appropriate that the petitioner should be heard by the Commissioner concerned before making an order under section 12(6) of the Act. In the present case, that exercise having not been done, the proceedings initiated as per annexure "C" shall stand quashed. It is certainly open to the authorities if the law allows to take such action as is permissible. Petition allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed.