JUDGMENT This is a reference directed against the order passed by the Tribunal dated March 4, 1976 at the instance of the assessee under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The following question of law has been referred to this Court for answer, which reads as under : "The question arises, when the proceedings under section 39(2) of the Act will be deemed to have been initiated - whether on the date the notice was signed by the Additional Commissioner, i.e., April 20, 1971 or whether it will be the date on which the office issued the notice, i.e., April 27, 1971 or whether it will be the date the notice was served on the party, i.e., May 3, 1971." 2. The applicant/assessee deals mainly in kirana and toilet goods and observes diwali year. All the quarterly returns were submitted belatedly. The purchase list in form VIII was also not produced. Since quantitative accounts were maintained and closed, the assessing officer proceeded on their basis and determined the total turnover at Rs. 16,99,662.55. After allowing deductions to the tune of Rs. 5,14,212.55, the taxable turnover was fixed at Rs. 11,85,349.99 and a tax of Rs. 59,818.24, was levied after classifying the taxable turnover into 7, 6, 3 and 2 per cent rates. A penalty of Rs. 4,000 was imposed under section 43(1) and another penalty of Rs. 1,500 under section 17(3). The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax took the assessment order under revision under section 39(2) of the Act and by the impugned order remanded the case for assessment according to law on the basis of correct classification and imposition of penalty under various sections. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred against the order of the Additional Commissioner and it was contended that the Additional Commissioner erred in instituting proceedings under section 39(2) of the Act. It was contended that correct section which should have been referred was section 19(1) of the Act because penalty is provided therein. It was contended that there was no ground for interfering under section 39(2) of the Act. It is alleged that the Sales Tax Officer passed the assessment order on April 24, 1968 and the Additional Commissioner signed the notice of revision on April 20, 1971 which was despatched on April 27, 1971. Therefore, the revision was also barred by time. It was contended that there was no ground for interfering under section 39(2) of the Act. It is alleged that the Sales Tax Officer passed the assessment order on April 24, 1968 and the Additional Commissioner signed the notice of revision on April 20, 1971 which was despatched on April 27, 1971. Therefore, the revision was also barred by time. The Tribunal after considering the matter held that the notice under section 39(2) was not barred by time and found that it was issued to the assessee within three years. Thereafter the assessee approached the Tribunal for referring this question of law before this Court. Hence the Tribunal referred the aforesaid question for answer before this Court. 3. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that this question stands squarely answered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asbestos Cement Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh [1976] 38 STC 321 where a similar question under section 39(2) of the Act has been answered and it is pointed out that as regards limitation of three years provided by the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 39 of the Act, the period will have to be computed from the date of issue of the notice and not from the date of service. Since the question has been already answered by this Court in the case of Asbestos Cement Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1976] 38 STC 321 that the period of three years is to be computed from the date of issue of notice and not from the date of service, the aforesaid question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee as in the present case notice was issued on April 20, 1971 and it is accordingly within limitation. Reference answered in favour of Revenue.