Judgment ( 1. ) A small point for adjudication arises and for avoiding the delay in initiating the proceedings against the appellant for which the respondents issued notices, this appeal is being heard finally at motion hearing stage by concurrence of both the lawyers appearing for the parties. ( 2. ) SHRI Choudhary pointed out that the learned single Judge Reported as Subhash and Company v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2001] 122 STC 442 (MP ). by making unnecessary observations in para 14 of the judgment concluded : "as a consequence of aforesaid discussion, I have to conclude that impugned assessment orders as also reassessment orders were passed ex parte and behind the back of the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner did not get an opportunity to participate in assessment proceedings which are subject-matter of this petition for want of notice. These assessment, therefore, cannot be given effect to. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Orders dated December 13, 1990 (annexure P7), December 13, 1990 (annexure P5), August 29, 1985 (annexure P6), order sheets dated August 10, 1988 to March 10, 1992 (annexure P8), orders (collectively) dated April 23, 1992 (annexure P9) are quashed by writ of certiorari. The assessing officer shall make proper assessment in respect of the same period de novo in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has already appeared in this petition, no further notice is now necessary for him to be sent by assessing officer. Since the matter is pending for quite a long time, the petitioner will co-operate with the assessing officer in its early disposal. Let all the assessment proceedings be completed within a period of six months from the date of this order. Petitioner to appear before the concerned assessing officer on December 26, 2000. " Shri Choudhary further submitted that by using the word "de novo" and directing the petitioner to appear before the assessing officer on December 26, 2000 and directing him to complete the assessment proceedings within six months, the petitioner would be deprived of his right to agitate the point of limitation. Shri Choudhary further submitted that the limitation period provided for initiating the proceeding against the appellant has already expired and no such assessment proceedings can be initiated against the appellant. Shri Choudhary further submitted that the limitation period provided for initiating the proceeding against the appellant has already expired and no such assessment proceedings can be initiated against the appellant. Shri Choudhary further submitted that when the learned Judge found that the notice in questions were bad in law as they were not properly and legally served on the appellant, the learned single Judge had no jurisdiction to revive the said proceedings. He also submitted that by virtue of this order the assessing authority would be clothed with the jurisdiction which it do not have presently and by virtue of this order the appellant would be forbidden to raise that point if such proceedings is to be initiated against him. Shri Choudhary submitted that the assessing authority may be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing fresh notices, if law permits and in that case, the appellant would be entitled to agitate point of limitation for challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. He submitted that the order which has been assailed by this appeal needs to be set aside as it is not proper, correct and legal. ( 3. ) SHRI S. S. Kemkar, counsel appearing for the respondents, justified the order under challenge by submitting that the learned Judge has rightly allowed the assessing authority to take proceedings against the appellant and to complete it within six months. He submitted that the appellant would be at liberty to agitate the point of limitation in such proceedings. ( 4. ) WE are not able to agree with the submission of Shri Kemkar, for the respondent. The reason is obvious that the learned Judge though has quashed the previous order which were impugned by the writ petition however has committed error of using the word "de novo" and directing the assessing authority to complete such proceedings within six months and directing the appellant to appear before the said authority on December 26, 2000. It by all means show that the assessing authority has been clothed with the jurisdiction which the appellant wanted to challenge by putting the point of limitation. It by all means show that the assessing authority has been clothed with the jurisdiction which the appellant wanted to challenge by putting the point of limitation. In the matter of Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (decd.) [1967] 66 ITR 147, the Supreme Court held that the service of notice under Section 34 (1) (a) within the period of limitation being a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, if the Income-tax Officer is unable to prove that the notice was duly served upon the assessee within the prescribed period, any return filed by the assessee after the expiry of that period will not invest the Income-tax Officer with authority to reassess the income of the assessee pursuant to such a return. This ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court is applicable to the present case in view of doctrine of "ejusdem generis". The appellant will have to be brought to the stage where he stood before the said notices were issued and were intended to be served on him. He will have to be brought to the stage where he stood and was entitled to agitate the point of limitation in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi [1967) 66 ITR 147. That is the right which the appellant has acquired on account of inactiveness on the part of the concerned department, and that right cannot be taken away from him without giving him opportunity of agitating it and allowing him to get that point adjudicated legally. Inadvertently, it seems that the words which have been objected to by the appellant have come in the order which has been assailed by this appeal. In the interest of justice they need to be quashed as the learned Judge has quashed the order in question and proceedings in question by issuing writ of certiorari. ( 5. ) IT is made clear that the assessing authority is at liberty to think of initiating the proceedings against the appellant, if the law permits and if he initiates such proceedings the appellant would be at liberty to agitate such points and the assessing authority would decide the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs.