ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. As common questions are involved in both these petitions they are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and the Central Sales Tax Act. 1956. The company is engaged in the business of trading of dry colors, Neel and Mehndi. Accordingly to the Petitioner they purchase all these products in bulk within the State of M.P., through registered dealers after paying sales tax and after repacking they are sold in small Pouches of various weight. Petitioner also manufacturers Distemper, dry color and kum-Kum which is sold within the State of Madhya Pradesh and outside the State. Proceedings for assessment of tax payable for the year 1991- 1992 were initiated against the Petitioner establishment and Commercial Tax in accordance with law were assessed. Assessment orders were passed vide Annexure P/6 on 17-2-1995 for the year 1991-92, similar orders vide order Annexure P/7. P/8 and P/9 were passed on 26-12-1995. 14-6-1996 and 16-6-1997 respectively for the assessment year 1991-92. 1992-93. 1993-94 and 1994-1995. For the assessment year 1995-96 assessment order dated 17-11-1998 vide Annexure P/3 filed in W.P. No. 120/2004 was passed. It is grievance of the Petitioner that after the assessment orders were passed as indicated hereinabove for all the assessment years, notices for reopening of the assessment were issued vide Annexure P/10. P/11. P/12 and P/13 etc., on 12-1-1999. the reasons indicate for reopening of the assessment was that the auditor has raised certain objection and therefore, the competent authority has decided to reopening the assessment for ail the years. According to the Petitioner after the notices were issued to the Petitioner for reopen of the assessment, ex parte order dated 10-12-1999 was passed. the reasons indicate for reopening of the assessment was that the auditor has raised certain objection and therefore, the competent authority has decided to reopening the assessment for ail the years. According to the Petitioner after the notices were issued to the Petitioner for reopen of the assessment, ex parte order dated 10-12-1999 was passed. Being aggrieved by the order of ex-parte assessment Petitioner preferred revision petition before the competent authority under the Commercial Tax Act and the competent authority vide order dated 10-2-1999 filed as Annexure P/14 in W.P. 63/04 remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for afresh assessment and certain objections raised by Petitioner in the revision petition were also allowed, after the order of remand was made, according to the Petitioner proceedings were held on various dales between 27-1-2000 to 30th April, 2002 and thereafter vide orders dated 27-6-2002 filed as Annexure P/2 to P/5 in W.P. No. 63/04 and 18-7-2003 Annexure P/l filed in WP No. 120/2004, the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority were upheld and revisions filed have also been dismissed. Accordingly challenging the order of assessment passed by the competent authority on 27-6-2002 and the order dated 18-7-2003 dismissing the revision petition filed by the Petitioner, Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Shri K.N. Gupta. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner inviting my attention to the provision of Section 27(8) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act. 1994 argued that the assessment is to be made in accordance with the said provision and assessment has to be completed within a period of two years. It is pointed out by him that under the Provision (bi of Section 27(8) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act. 1994. if an ex-parte assessment is set aside and the matter is reopened then fresh assessment is to be made within six calendar months from the date of setting aside of ex-parte order, however Sub-section (9) further gives power to the Government to extend the period of assessment for reasons to be recorded in writing by a notification. It was pointed out by Shri K.N. Gupta. Senior counsel for the Petitioner that in the present case the ex-parte order of assessment was passed, therefore, the assessment should have been completed within a period of six calendar months from 24-4-1999. It was pointed out by Shri K.N. Gupta. Senior counsel for the Petitioner that in the present case the ex-parte order of assessment was passed, therefore, the assessment should have been completed within a period of six calendar months from 24-4-1999. however Shri Gupta points out that the period is extended by the State Government by issuing notification Annexure P/15 and P/16 u/s 27(9) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994, the period has been extended upto 31st January 1990. however inviting my attention to Section 23 of the General Clauses Act. Shri Gupta, emphasized that as the notification is not published in the official gazette, the action initiated is unsustainable. Placing reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the Case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. New Tobacco Co. Etc. Etc., , Shri K. N. Gupta, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner tried to emphasize that as the notice of the assessment is not published in the gazette and it is not notified as per law and as assessment is done beyond the period prescribed u/s 27(8) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1394 and therefore, on this ground he seeks for interference in the matter. Thereafter, it was submitted by him that in the present case the assessment concluded for various periods have been reopened only on the basis of certain audit objections, this according to Shri Gupta is not permissible, therefore. Shri Gupta points out that the competent authority has merely acted on the basis of audit objection and has not applied its independent mind on the question of reopening of the assessment. Shri Gupta submits that until and unless some defects in the earlier assessment is pointed or there is defects in the account book submitted by the Petitioner, no case is made out for reopening of the assessment. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner that on the same set of facts and records reopening of the assessment is not permissible. It is argued that as the reopening authority has not recorded his independent satisfaction merely because the auditor have some other opinion that cannot be a ground for reopening of assessment. Accordingly on these grounds Shri Gupta submits that entire action initiated is vitiated and the order impugned liable to be quashed. It is argued that as the reopening authority has not recorded his independent satisfaction merely because the auditor have some other opinion that cannot be a ground for reopening of assessment. Accordingly on these grounds Shri Gupta submits that entire action initiated is vitiated and the order impugned liable to be quashed. In support of the second contention advanced by Shri Gupta, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: I. Parikh and sons v. Trade Tax Officer, Sector 6, 1998 (109) STC 631 . II. Milan Supari Stores v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and others, 1994 (95) STC 165 , III. Indian and Eastern Newspaper, Society iv. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, 1979 (119) FIR 996, IV. Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others, 2000 (119) SEC 460, V. Sarvottam Supari Stores, lndore v. Asstt. Commissioner of Sales Tax and 2 others, 1994 (27) VKN 330, VI. Shaktiji Int. Udyog Sirsa Allahabad v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. Lucknow, 2001 (18) NTN 25, VII. Indure Limited v. Commissioner Sales Tax Cuttack, Orissa and others, 2007(38) LTD 34. According to Shri Gupta in the present case as the action initiated is vitiated for the aforesaid reasons both the petitions be allowed and the orders passed for reassessment and the orders passed by revisional authority be quashed. Refuting the aforesaid contention Smt. Ami Prabal, Deputy Advocate General, for the State submits that as far as ground for delay is concerned Section 29(9) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 is very clear in its term and Government is competent to increase the period of limitation by a notification. It was pointed out by her that by notification dated 20th December, 2001 Annexure P/16 published in the M.P. Gazette at page 1322. the period for concluding the proceedings were extended to 30th of April, 2002 and thereafter it was further extended upto 30th July. 2002. Smt. Ami Prabal, Dy. Advocate General for State points out that as the period is extended by the government after recording reasons and the same is also notified in the gazette, the first ground urged by Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is wholly misconceived and unsustainable. As far as the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority and the reasons for reopening of assessment is concerned, Smt. Ami Prabal, Dy. As far as the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority and the reasons for reopening of assessment is concerned, Smt. Ami Prabal, Dy. Advocate General for State invites my attention to the provision of Section 28(1) of the M.P. Commercial Act submits that any assessment made can be reopened if it is found that goods chargeable to tax for any period has been under assessed or has escaped assessment or assessed at a lower rate or any deduction has been wrongly made there from. Inviting my attention to the reasons indicated in the orders for reopening of the assessment as contained in Annexure P/10. learned Dy. Advocate General points out that for each and every years it was found that on the total turnover indicated for the purpose of tax, deduction were claimed showing very high rate of profit. It was pointed out by the auditors that deduction claimed on the basis of profit was very much on the higher side whereas actual profit is very much on the lower side. Smt. Ami Prabal, Deputy Advocate General submits that difference for the year 1991-92 was more than 65%. similarly for the year 1992-93 it was more than 100% for the year 1993-94 it was again more than 60% and for the year 94-95 was more than 40%. Accordingly Smt. Ami Prabal. submits that as there was material irregularity in the matter of assessment the competent authority being satisfied with the same has directed for reopening for assessment in accordance with law, the assessment after reopening having been done in accordance with law no case for interference is made out. she points out that each and every case cited by Shri K.N. Gupta, is distinguishable not only on the facts but also on the basis of the statutory provision applicable, accordingly she submits that there is no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and prays for dismissal of both two petitions. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. As far as the question with regard to delay in initiating proceedings are concerned, it is clear from a perusal of Sub-section (9) of Section 27 of Commercial Tax Act, that an assessment proceedings has to be completed within the period contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 27 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 but for the reasons to be recorded in writing that State Government by notification is entitled to extend the period for completion of assessment. In the present case even though the period of assessment as per Sub-section (8) of Section 27 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act. 1994 was over. State Government by exercising power conferred on it u/s 27(9) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 had issued various notifications and the period for completing the assessment was extended up to 30th January, 2002 and within the extended period the reassessment proceedings were concluded on 27-6-2002 notification for extending the period as is evident from Annexure P/15 and P/16 were published in the M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharan). That being so I find no substance in the contention advanced by Shri K.N. Gupta, learned senior counsel for Petitioner the judgment in the case of Collector Central Excise (supra) relied upon by Shri Gupta is clearly distinguishable as the same relates to procedure to be followed for publication under Central Excises and Salts Act. 1944, in the present case as the statutory requirement contemplated u/s 28(9) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act is complied with, it cannot be said that the process of reassessment were conducted beyond the statutory period. Reference made to Section 23 of the General Process Act is also irrelevant as the records indicate that the notification u/s 27(9) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act. 1994 were duly published in the M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharan). accordingly the first ground assail is found to be unsustainable and is accordingly rejected. As far as second ground is concerned, even though in some of the judgment relied upon by Shri K.N. Gupta. 1994 were duly published in the M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharan). accordingly the first ground assail is found to be unsustainable and is accordingly rejected. As far as second ground is concerned, even though in some of the judgment relied upon by Shri K.N. Gupta. Senior counsel, it is indicated that merely on the basis of auditor report or on the basis of information assessment concluded and finalized cannot be reopened, but the facts of each and every case and the ground for reopening of assessment has to be individually taken note of and this Court is required to assess the reason for reopening, the facts and circumstances of the present case thereafter, keeping in view the statutory provision applicable in the matter the question of reopening of assessment is to be decided. Section 28 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act. 1994 contemplates a procedure for assessment of turnover escaping assessment made under the Act or under the Repeal Act and M. P. General Sales Tax Act. If Tax on goods chargeable under this Act i.e. M.P. Commercial Tax Act or the repeal Act is found to have escaped assessment or is found to be assessed at a lower rate or exemption wrongly allowed, the Assessment Officer within a period of 6 calender year from the date of original assessment is empowered to reopen the assessment after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned. In the present case the reasons indicated in the notice Annexure P/10 goes to show that for various periods it was found that Petitioner had claimed profit on a very higher side than the average rate of profit normally accepted. A perusal of the reasons as claimed in Annexure P/10 indicates that for the year 1991-92 for a taxable turnover of Rs. 23,80.798/- profit at 81 % was claimed and (hereafter tax paid after deduction of this profit whereas in actually the profit margin indicated was only 15%. Accordingly it was indicated that there is a vast difference in the profit claimed for exemption from payment of Tax and therefore, the assessment was reopened as it was the case of deduction being wrongly granted and certain amount escaping assessment. Similarly for the year 1992-93 profit @ 90% was shown, whereas profit only to the tune of 16.5% was liable to be granted. Similarly for the year 1992-93 profit @ 90% was shown, whereas profit only to the tune of 16.5% was liable to be granted. Similar discrepancies were found in all the subsequent years and therefore recording specific reasons for all the years the matter was reopened. Therefore, in the present case even if it is accepted that the auditor had pointed out this defect, the facts remains that the assessment of tax was made in an incorrect manner the report of the auditor were placed and considered by the competent authority and finding report of auditor to be proper action has been taken, that being so it cannot be said that the competent authority has acted mechanically and without application of mind and has taken action without forming any opinion independently. All the cases relied upon by Shri K.N. Gupta. Senior counsel for Petitioner in the matter of reopening of the assessment are distinguishable and will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Sarvottam Supari Stores, Indore (supra) a mere chance of escape assessment without any definite material was made an event for reassessment, under these circumstances a bench of this Court held that mere chance of escape of assessment cannot be a ground for reopening of assessment. Similarly in the case of Eureka Forbes Ltd. (supra) Patna High Court found that the assessment has been reopened because of some difference of opinion, it was held that mere change of opinion in the same set of fact cannot be a ground for reopening of assessment under the relevant Bihar Sales Tax Act. 1959. this case is also distinguishable on facts. Similarly the Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspapers (supra) had considered the question of reassessment and complication of the word "information" appearing in Income Tax Act and the certificate issued by Central Board of Taxation, the said case is based on the provision of Section 147-B of the Income Tax Act and it is based on the definition of "information" on the basis of which the assessment made was reopened by the Income Tax Officer, the said case will also not apply in the present case as in the present case apparent error in assessment and escape of assessment as contemplated u/s 28 is established. In the case of Milan Supari Stores (supra) question of 'jurisdiction was involved and that was a case where it was found that the authorities ordering assessment has no jurisdiction therefore, interference was made this case will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Parikh and Sons (supra) decided by Allahabad High Court interference was made because reassessment was ordered on the basis of certain survey conducted which had taken place much before passing of original order of assessment, it was because of these reasons that interference was made. In the case of Shaktiji Int. Udyog Sirsa, Allahabad High Court interfered with the proceeding for reassessment as in the facts of that case it was found that taxable turnover was not properly considered and from the account book it was found that taxable turnover should not be enhanced. The said case is also distinguishable. In the case of Eureka Forbes Ltd. (supra) Patna High Court had interfered with the matter and it was held that reassessment ordered on the basis of audit objection without application of mind is unjustified in the facts that were presented before the Patna High Court, in the said case application of mind was totally absent and as the Court found the order of assessment to be passed mechanically on the basis of report of auditor interference was made in the said case. This case is also distinguishable on facts, in the present case even though the defects in the earlier assessment were pointed out by the auditors but the same was again considered by the competent authority and while issuing notice to the Petitioner the competent authority has recorded specific reasons prima facie demonstrating amount having escaped assessment and assessment made at a lower rate and deduction wrongly granted, that being so it is a case where reasons have been specifically recorded by the authorities concerned and it is not a case where the authorities have acted merely on the basis of audit objection. The report of the auditors was taken note of and thereafter the competent authority on being satisfied have recorded the reason and proceeded in the matter. The report of the auditors was taken note of and thereafter the competent authority on being satisfied have recorded the reason and proceeded in the matter. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case it has to be held that the action taken for reassessment is strictly in accordance with powers conferred on the competent authority u/s 28 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act. 1994 and there is no reason to hold that the authorities have acted in excess of the powers conferred on them. At this juncture it may be pointed out that while taking up the matter of the Petitioner for reassessment it has been found that when the earlier orders of assessment were passed, Petitioner had shown expenditure in repacking of dry colors in pouches of different weight. Expenditure were shown at a higher rate in tax paid dry colors in comparison to taxable dry colors whereas the procedure for repacking and manufacturing was same in the taxable dry color and therefore both should have been equal, it was found that Petitioner has deliberately shown expenditure of repacking tax paid for dry color at higher rate with a view to avoid deduction of tax. It was found that Petitioner had shown these expenditure of repacking with a view to avoid payment of tax. Respondents filed return demonstrating the manner in which Petitioner avoid payment of Commercial Tax, facts available on record clearly indicates that in the present case the earlier assessment was not properly done and as the competent authority found that certain amount chargeable towards tax has escaped assessment and tax has been charged, after granting deduction incorrectly. Action has been taken in accordance with the provision of Section 28 of M.P. Commercial Tax Act and revisional authority also after considering these aspects of the matter has passed a detailed order on 18-7-2003 dismissing the revision petition filed by the Petitioner. Under these circumstances this Court is of the considered view that as the competent authority has assessed the tax after reassessment in accordance with the provision of law and the revisional authority has also taken action by recording cogent reasons, accordingly, no case is made out for interference now in these petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Accordingly both the petitions are dismissed without any order so as to cost. Final Result : Dismissed