ORDER ABHAY M. NAIK, J. - The petitioner is a dealer and was registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was assessed to tax for the assessment period from November 4, 1975 to October 23, 1976 under the State Act as well as the Central Act and the demand of Rs. 94,536 and Rs. 2,700 was made respectively by order dated October 13, 1985. Two separate appeals were preferred under section 38 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner by the petitioner which were allowed by common order dated October 27, 1986 contained in annexure P1. The order of assessment was set aside on the ground that the assessing officer did not give any finding on factual and legal controversy involved in the matter. Accordingly, the matter was remitted back to the assessing officer for deciding it afresh. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue in second appeal. The appeals were dismissed in default vide order dated January 12, 1995 contained in annexures P2 and P3. The petitioner received notices for recovery both dated October 13, 1995 contained in annexures P4 and P5, which were objected to by it vide reply contained in annexures P8 and P9 dated October 25, 1995 and January 6, 1998 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner again received notices both dated December 31, 1997 contained in annexures P6 and P7 for fresh assessment. They were again objected to. Thereafter fresh assessment orders have been passed on June 30, 1998 contained in annexures P12 and P13 which are assailed in the present writ petition along with annexures P4 to P7. Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the matter was remitted back vide order dated October 27, 1986. Thereafter, an assessment ought to have been made within a period of two years therefrom in view of proviso to clause (8) of section 18 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Shri Vinod Mehta, learned Government Advocate, submitted that the order contained in annexure P1 attained finality on January 12, 1995 vide annexures P2 and P3 and in view of sections 19A and 20 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, no interference is warranted. Shri Vinod Mehta, learned Government Advocate, submitted that the order contained in annexure P1 attained finality on January 12, 1995 vide annexures P2 and P3 and in view of sections 19A and 20 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, no interference is warranted. Moreover, the proceedings were initiated rightly within a period of three years and thereafter, the orders having been passed within a period of two years are quite valid and do not call for any interference. After hearing the arguments, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed for the reasons to follow. Section 18 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 provides for assessment of tax. Proviso (a) to sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Act, is reproduced as below since the same is relevant : "18(8)(a). - Where a fresh assessment has to be made to give effect to any finding or direction contained in any order under section 38, 39 or 44 or to any order of the Civil Court, High Court or Supreme Court such assessment shall be made within a period of two calendar years from the date of the order containing such finding or direction or the order of the Civil Court, High Court or Supreme Court as the case may be. If for any reason such fresh assessment is not made within the specified period, the Commissioner shall take steps to ensure that assessment is made as expeditiously as possible." From the documents on record, it is clear that the appellate authority passed the remand order on October 27, 1986 as contained in annexure P1 directing thereby the assessing officer to make a fresh assessment. By virtue of proviso (a), the assessment pursuant to the remand order ought to have been made within a period of two calendar years from the date of the order dated October 27, 1986. Although, proviso (a) further added that if for any reason such fresh assessment is not made within the specified period, the Commissioner shall take steps to ensure that assessment is made as expeditiously as possible, the same has been struck down by the Division Bench of this court in Adarsh General Stores v. Sales Tax Officer, Satna [1999] 113 STC 373; [1997] 30 VKN 9 on the ground that the statutory period of limitation cannot be by-passed by the executive order of the Commissioner. Contention of Shri Mehta, learned Government Advocate, that the order of remand attained finality on January 12, 1995 on dismissal of the second appeals by the Board of Revenue is misconceived because the period of limitation of two calendar years is to be counted as per proviso (a) from the date of order containing the finding/direction of remand. Thus, the impugned orders are passed in contravention of section 18(8) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and are bad in law. Next contention of Shri Mehta, learned Government Advocate, that the orders are within the limitation in the light of section 19A of the said Act is to be examined in the light of the provisions itself, which is reproduced below : "19A. Power of reassessment in certain cases. - (1) Where any order passed in respect of a dealer for any period is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue consequent to or in the light of any judgment or order of any court or Tribunal, which has become final then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Commissioner may at any time within a period of three years from the date of such judgment or order initiate proceedings to reassess the tax payable by such dealer. (2) The reassessment proceedings initiated under sub-section (1) shall be completed as far as may be within a period of two calendar years from the date of initiation of such proceedings. (3) No order of reassessment under this section shall be passed without giving to the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard." The orders of assessment passed earlier were set aside by the appellate officer on October 27, 1986 and the assessing officer was obliged to make fresh assessment in compliance with the remand order. It is not a case where the assessment order in respect of the petitioner for the subject period is found erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Moreover, the scope of section is altogether different and it would apply if in the light of any order of the court or Tribunal the order of assessment is rendered erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, section 19A of the said Act, has no application to the present situation. Moreover, the scope of section is altogether different and it would apply if in the light of any order of the court or Tribunal the order of assessment is rendered erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, section 19A of the said Act, has no application to the present situation. Shri Vinod Mehta, learned Government Advocate relying upon the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Naraindas Sindhwani v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1969] MPLJ 898, contended that a fresh assessment/reassessment pursuant to remand order is not subject to any kind of limitation. It may be seen that the Division Bench judgment was pronounced on August 29, 1969 whereas section 20 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was amended with effect from December 1, 1969 vide Act No. 10 of 1970. By virtue of the said amendment, the word "section 18" has been omitted and sub-section (8) was inserted in section 18. This proviso containing clauses (a), (b) and (c) was added with effect from October 1, 1978 by virtue of Act No. 25 of 1978. Obviously, when the appellate order dated October 27, 1986 was passed, the proviso contained in clause (8) did exist and the remand order for fresh decision was liable to be complied with within a period of two calendar years. This having not been done, the fresh assessment order passed on June 30, 1998 is not sustainable in law. In the result, the petition succeeds and is, hereby allowed. The orders contained in annexures P4 to P7, P12 and P13 are, hereby quashed. No order as to costs.