Judgment Shashank Kr.Singh, J. 1. The present application has been filed by one Santosh Kumar Agrawal son of late Lakhi Prasad Agrawal for quashing the notice as contained in memo no. 6072 by which the petitioner has been directed to produce the books of accounts for the period 1965-66 to 1970-71 by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bhagalpur. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his late father Shri Lakhi Prasad Agrawal was the owner of M/s Agrawal Motor Service, carrying on business of Bus Service in the districts of Saharsa and Purnea, for which he was holding permit in his individual name granted by the Regional Transport Authority. It has further been contended that original proceeding for assessment of taxes under the Act for 1965-66 to 1970-71 was initiated against M/s Agrawal Motor Service and the assessment order was passed on 5.9.1972 by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Bhagalpur. It has further been contended that said Lakhi Prasad Agrawal died on 5.3.1972. As the father of the petitioner was already dead, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur who by his order dated 31.3.1975 set aside the order of the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Bhagalpur dated 5.9.1972 and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority. It has further been contended that after remand, notices were issued on 30.11.1978 separately in the name of all the co-sharers and heirs of late Lakhi Prasad Agrawal. Petitioner appeared before the Assessing Authority and filed an objection before it. However, it is contended by learned counsel that an order was passed on 1.12.1980 rejecting the objection of the petitioner behind his back. Petitioner being aggrieved by the same filed a writ petition before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 519 of 1981. By order dated 19.3.1986 a Bench of this Court remanded the matter back to the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bhagalpur to decide the matter afresh including the matter relating to the status of the assessee within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The said matter after remand was heard by Joint Commissioner. By order dated 19.3.1986 a Bench of this Court remanded the matter back to the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bhagalpur to decide the matter afresh including the matter relating to the status of the assessee within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The said matter after remand was heard by Joint Commissioner. Commercial Taxes (Appeals) on several dates and by order dated 29.5.1986 he remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority with a direction to decide the matter of limitation raised by the petitioner as well as the liability of the petitioner tc pay tax under the provisions of sections 2 (d) and 3 of the Bihar Taxation on Passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). A further direction was given by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) to the Assessing Authority to determine the tax for the year 1965-66 to 1969-70 by enhancing the same by 5% and that of 1970-71 by 10%. 3. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in view of, aforesaid remand order, the Assessing Authority did not issue notice to the petitioner for nearly two years and finally has issued notice to the petitioner after a lapse of two years vide Annexure-3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that section 7(A) of the Act clearly envisages that subject to provision under section 7(B) any assessment of tax payable by the owner under this Act in respect of any period shall be initiated except before the expiry of four years from the expiry of such period, provided such a proceeding for reassessment was pursuant to an order on appeal, revision, reference or review may be initiated before the expiry of two years from the date of communication of such order to the Assessing Authority. As such, according to learned counsel, petitioner being covered under the aforesaid proviso was not liable for payment of tax for the period 1965-66 to 1970-71 as the same was beyond the period of three years from the date of initiation of initial proceeding which was on 4.7.1989. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, is that since the business of M/s Agrawal Motor Service was a H.U.F. business the heirs were liable to pay the dues. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, is that since the business of M/s Agrawal Motor Service was a H.U.F. business the heirs were liable to pay the dues. In support of his contention State counsel has produced photo copy of the registration to show that in column no. 4, the word H.U.F. was written. From the aforesaid judgment it also transpires that the petitioner and his brother had filed application on 29.5.1974 and 19.6.1974 wherein it was mentioned that petitioner Santosh Kumar Agrawai is a co-parcener of late Lakhi Prasad Agrawai, the original assessee. The State counsel in the aforesaid writ application had also relied upon recital portion of a deed of partition dated 15.5.1972 in which it was mentioned that Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal, the eldest son was the Karta of the H.U.F. and as such, it was submitted that business of Agrawai Motor Service was H.U.F. business and being one of heirs of late Lakhi Prasad Agrawal, petitioner was definitely liable for payment of dues along with other co-parceners. Section 2 (d) of the Act also goes to show that if a business was being run as a H.U.F. business then the heirs and other members of the H.U.F. also were within the ambit of owner and were jointly and severally liable for payment of the dues. It would not be out of place to mention here that even during the life time of father of the petitioner some Buses were individually registered in the name of the petitioner and other co-parceners which was subject matter of separate assessment and for which liability of tax has to be assessed separately and individually. 5. In the tacts of the case, in view of discussions as made above, the matter has been remitted back to the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur in view of order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 519 of 1981. In compliance of aforesaid order, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes had issued notice to petitioner to appear before it along with books of accounts and other documents, so that the matter can be decided as per the direction of this Court in the writ application. In compliance of aforesaid order, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes had issued notice to petitioner to appear before it along with books of accounts and other documents, so that the matter can be decided as per the direction of this Court in the writ application. Petitioner cannot taKe benefit under section 7(A) and (B) of the Act regarding limitation from the order of this Court as the proviso may bar assessment so far it relates to appeal, revision, review etc. but at no place does it mention, if, the same was being done in view of order of a Court. 6. in the present case, admittedly the matter was remitted back to the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bhagaipur for reconsideration of the matter who had directed the Assistant Commissioner to examine the matter afresh and as such, the notice as contained in Annexure-3. Today the petitioner cannot turn back and say that the said notice was barred by limitation. He has to appear before the court along with necessary documents and take objection which are being tried to be taken before this Court. 7. In the facts of the case, as Annexure-3 has been issued in view of order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 519 of 1981 as contained in Annexure-1, this Court directs the petitioner to submit to the jurisdiction of the said authority and file his objection along with other records and papers which he had been directed to submit before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bhagaipur. 8. It is further made clear that petitioner should appear before the appropriate authority within a period of one month from today along with a copy of this Order/Judgment and if the petitioner files his papers and takes other objection the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law in view of earlier direction of this Court. 9. In the result, this writ application fails and is accordingly dismissed. The order of stay granted on 26.3.1990 is vacated. The respondent authorities are directed to proceed further in accordance with law. Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 10 I agree.