ORDER Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman J. - The writ petition is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal allowing O.P. No. 474 of 2002, wherein, the assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the same are hit by the limitation provided under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessment year relates to 1994-95. It is stated that the assessment order was originally passed on April 29, 1996, wherein, the taxability on the sales of REP licence was considered and the turnover exempted from taxation. Consequent on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered on May 1, 1996 in the case of Vikas Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [1996] 102 STC 106 confirming the liability on the sale of REP licences, the assessing authority passed a revised assessment order relating to the turnover on sale of REP licence in his proceedings dated March 25, 1997. Thereafter, in respect of further turnover of Rs. 16,59,277, a second reassessment notice was issued on January 18, 2001 followed by another notice on February 20, 2001. The proposal was confirmed by order dated March 20, 2002. In the course of the proceedings dated March 20, 2002, the assessing authority noted the objections of the assessee that the proceedings were barred by limitation as provided for under section 16(2) and took a stand that the notice had to be read as one issued under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and not under section 16 of the said Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an original petition before the Tribunal in O.P. No. 474 of 2002. By order dated June 25, 2002, the Tribunal allowed the case of the assessee holding that the notice issued on January 18, 2001 is barred by limitation, and hence, the impugned order dated March 20, 2002 has to be quashed. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an original petition before the Tribunal in O.P. No. 474 of 2002. By order dated June 25, 2002, the Tribunal allowed the case of the assessee holding that the notice issued on January 18, 2001 is barred by limitation, and hence, the impugned order dated March 20, 2002 has to be quashed. Hence, the Revenue has come up by filing writ petition contending that the benefit of section 16(4) has to be applied to the calculation of limitation and submitted that in view of provision of section 16(4) of the Act in computing the period of limitation for assessment or reassessment under section 16, the period of pendency of the writ petition, which was disposed there afterwards, need to be excluded and thereby the proceedings would be saved by limitation provided under section 16(2). We heard the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the Revenue and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Leaving alone for a moment the question whether the proceedings have to be affirmed as falling under section 16 or 55, the notice issued by the officer clearly states that the proceedings were issued under section 16. Only at the time of passing the order, apparently to get over the limitation, the impugned order has been passed under section 55 of the Act. For the purpose of considering the plea of limitation, the following dates have to be noted : In respect of the assessment year 1994-95, the original order of assessment was passed as early as April 29, 1996. The order of this court upholding levy of sales tax on sale of REP licence was passed on April 4, 1994 in the case of P.S. Apparels v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, T. Nagar East Assessment Circle, Madras reported in [1994] 94 STC 139 (Mad). On appeal before the Supreme Court, the levy was confirmed in the judgment dated May 1, 1996 (Vikas Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [1996] 102 STC 106) and the reassessment order passed on March 25, 1997 states that consequent on the decision of the Supreme Court, the present order has been passed, bringing the turnover relating to the sale of REP licence to tax. Thus, the first reassessment order dated March 25, 1997 was passed on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Thus, the first reassessment order dated March 25, 1997 was passed on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court. In the background of this, the plea of the Revenue that the provisions of section 16(4) would enure to the benefit of Revenue in working out the limitation on the second notice dated January 18, 2001 does not hold water. It may be seen that the writ petition filed by the assessee challenging the levy on REP licence was disposed of by the Supreme Court along with a batch of cases on May 1, 1996 in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 1995 (Vikas Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1996] 102 STC 106 (SC)). The first reassessment order itself came to be passed after the disposal of the writ petition and the Supreme Court decision. As such, on the second revision notice issued on January 18, 2001, the question of section 16(4) to exclude the time-limit does not arise at all. In the above circumstances, going by the facts herein, the Tribunal correctly came to the conclusion that the order passed could not be sustained as one within the time-frame given under section 16. In these circumstances, on the dates given, which are not disputed by the petitioner herein, we do not find any justification to apply the limitation to the proceedings impugned. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.