ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. These matters arise under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (1 of 1959). The assessment years are 1986-87 and 1987-88. The assessment orders were made in respect of these two years on 3-3-1988 and 15-2-1989 respectively. A notice under Section 16 of the Act proposing to reopen the assessments in respect of the said two assessment years was issued on 14-7-1993 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer; Karaikudi. The contention of the assessee is that this notice is beyond five years prescribed by sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act and hence barred. The notice is undoubtedly issued beyond five years but the respondents case is that it is not barred because of the provisions contained in sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 16. For appreciating the respondents contention, a few facts need to be noted : By GOMs No. 637 dated 7-6-1982 read with Notification No. II (1) /CTRE/1 16/77 dated 16-4-1977, the Government of Tamil Nadu conferred upon the Enforcement Wing Officers of the Commercial Tax Department the powers of the assessing officers under the Act. Purporting to act in exercise of the powers so conferred, the Deputy Commercial Tax a Officer (Enforcement), Karaikudi issued a notice in Form XII calling upon the appellant to produce certain records in connection with the inquiry under the Act pending before him. The notice is dated 24-2-1990. Soon after receiving the said notice, the appellant approached the Madras High Court by way of two Writ Petitions Nos. 4811 and 4812 of 1990. He impleaded not only the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), Karaikudi as a respondent (1st respondent) but also the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Karaikudi as the second respondent. In the writ petitions, the petitioner filed two interlocutory applications, WMPs Nos. 7428 to 7431 of 1990, praying for an injunction "restraining the respondents from implementing or enforcing Notification No. II (1) /CTREI116/77 dated 16-4-1977 and the conne limitation. We agree with the said opinion. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Dattaram Advertising (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka ((1991) 81 STC 394 (Kant)) but there the relevant facts are altogether different. The principle of that decision can have no relevance herein. 4. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.