ORDER T. S. DOABIA, J. - This order disposes of Writ Petition Nos. 1541 and 1542 of 1994. The petition is directed against an order dated October 1, 1994, whereby an appeal preferred under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter, "the Act"), has been dismissed as barred by limitation. The brief facts are as under : 2. An order of assessment was made on November 28, 1981, under the Act. Thereafter, suo motu revisional jurisdiction was exercised under section 39 of the Act. The turnover was reassessed. An order to this effect under section 39(2) was passed on May 22, 1987. 3. It is against the above order, an appeal was preferred on May 25, 1993. This was dismissed as barred by limitation. It is against this order, the present petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the period of limitation would begin from the date when the copy of the order is supplied to him. Reliance has been placed on section 39(3) of the Act. This provision reads as under : "39. Power of revision by Commissioner. - (3) Any dealer or person objecting to an order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) may appeal to the Tribunal within sixty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him." 5. As per the counsel for the petitioner no copy of order made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not supplied to the assessee. This plea is sought to be countered by pleadings : (i) that the copy was received by one of the partners, namely, Kailash Narayan. It is stated that he had signed the proceedings sheet on May 28, 1987 : (ii) that the information that an order has been passed on May 22, 1987, was made available to the petitioner. For this, reliance is being placed on annexure R/2. A perusal of annexure R/2 indicates that it does make mention of the fact that liability to the extent of Rs. 240 has been created with regard to the assessment year 1977-78. This communication is said to have been signed by one Mohanlal. 6. It may be seen that above fact is not the basis for dismissing the appeal as barred by time. What has been taken into consideration is that one Kailash Narayan had put his signatures on the proceedings sheet. 7. This communication is said to have been signed by one Mohanlal. 6. It may be seen that above fact is not the basis for dismissing the appeal as barred by time. What has been taken into consideration is that one Kailash Narayan had put his signatures on the proceedings sheet. 7. I am of the view that the appellate authority has not properly addressed itself to the factual and legal situation. What is required under section 39(3) is service on the assessee of the order. There is no proof that copy of the order was served on the assessee. There is nothing on the record to show that this was actually served. Reliance is however, being placed on the fact that one Kailash Narayan had put his signatures on the order sheet. This does not amount to service of order. When a dispute is raised, proper opportunity should be given to the parties. Whether Kailash Narayan has any concern with the firm or not is not known. As such, the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to determine : (i) as to whether copy of the order under section 39(3) was ever served on the assessee; (ii) whether Kailash Narayan was a person who was duly authorised by the assessee to appear before the authorities; (iii) after determining the aforementioned questions, the questions as to whether the appeal was within limitation or not be also decided. 8. The appellate authority should take into consideration that the petitioner has challenged the powers to initiate suo motu proceedings. Tax is dispute has been deposited. 9. Annexure P/4 is quashed. The appellate authority would decide the issue afresh. Matter remanded.