1. The petitioner/assessee has filed this revision petition against the order dated 26-04-1986 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals), Jammu (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Authority' in short), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner/assessee has been dismissed. 2. The material facts giving rise to filing to this revision petition are that the petitioner/assessee is a vendor/catering unit of Northern Railways at Jammu. The petitioner/assessee submitted its return of sales tax for the accounting year 1982-83, which was accepted by the Assessing Authority vide assessment order dated 09-03-1984. Subsequently it was found that taxable turnover of the petitioner/assessee has escaped assessment because of lower rate of tax has been charged and assessed as the sales tax has been paid and assessed at the rate of 2% instead of 8%. The Assessing Authority after initiating re-assessment proceedings under section 7 (11) of the J&K General Sales Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' in short) passed order on 29-07-1985 and created tax liability and also levied interest. The petitioner/assessee being aggrieved of this order preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 26-04-1986, which is impugned in this revision petition. 3. Through the medium of this revision petition, the petitioner/assessee challenged the correctness of the impugned order of the Appellate Authority before the learned Commissioner, Sales Tax, J&K on following grounds:- 1. That the order under revision is against law and facts of the case. 2. That the learned Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the contention raised before him to the effect that as the assessee has only supplied raw ration, it cannot be held that the sale of prepared goods have been made by the assessee. 3. That the learned Appellate Authority has not been justified in rejecting the submissions of the appellant to the affect that the petitioner is not liable to pay any sales tax and the mere fact that the appellant has filed return, shall not make the petitioner liable to sales tax when under law, there is no liability to pay any tax to the Department. 4. That there is no estopple against the statute. Thus, the appellant was entitled to take the plea before the Appellate Authority that no tax become payable. 5. 4. That there is no estopple against the statute. Thus, the appellant was entitled to take the plea before the Appellate Authority that no tax become payable. 5. That the learned Appellate Authority has also not been justified in holding that the re-assessment completed against the petitioner is justified when on the facts and circumstances of the case, no re-assessment could be raised against the petitioner. 6. That the order passed by the assessing authority in raising the assessment against the petitioner was without jurisdiction and the same should have been quashed. 7. Any other ground which may be urged and allowed at the time of arguments. 4. This revision petition was transferred to this Tribunal by the learned Commissioner in pursuant to the amendment made to Section 12(1) of the Act by the J&K General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2000. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record on the file. 6. Mr. Subash Dutt, Advocate appearing for the petitioner/assessee, has contended that the goods were supplied to the vendors in raw and vendors sold cooked food as such no tax can be imposed on petitioner. He has further submitted that no notice was served upon the petitioner before initiating re-assessment proceedings. He has further contended that levy of interest was not justified. Mr. M. A Bhat, Advocate appearing for Revenue, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioener/assessee has deposited the tax at the rate of 2% while the rate of tax was 8% which is disputed. He has further submitted that proper notice was served and petitioner/assessee filed reply to the same. He has submitted that the levy of interest was justified. 7. I have considered the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties at bar. I shall discuss the same hereinafter one by one. 8. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee is that the goods were supplied to the vendors in raw and vendors sold cooked food as such no tax can been imposed on the petitioner/assessee. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee is devoid of any force because in the original assessment the petitioner/assessee did not raise this plea. The petitioner/assessee has also shown such sales as taxable sales and deposited the sales tax collected from the vendors. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee is devoid of any force because in the original assessment the petitioner/assessee did not raise this plea. The petitioner/assessee has also shown such sales as taxable sales and deposited the sales tax collected from the vendors. That assessment has become final because the same was not challenged before the Appellate Authority. This revision petition has arisen out of the proceedings initiated for re-assessment on the ground that the petitioner/assessee has been assessed for lower rate of sales tax. Thus this plea cannot be raised in this re-assessment proceedings. 9. The next plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was served upon the petitioner before initiating re-assessment proceedings. He has further submitted that mere issuance of notice is not sufficient but service must be proved. It is true that from the plain reading of Section 7(11)(b) and (12) of the Act, it is clear that before initiating the re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Authority is bound to serve upon the dealer a notice containing grounds for such proceedings in prescribed form ST-19. The service of notice containing the grounds of re-assessment is a condition precedent for making the re-assessment of the dealer because the word used in Section 7(12) is `served' and not `issued'. This provision is mandatory and is required to be strictly followed. This is further clear by the fact that word `served' has been used in Sub-section (12) while word `issue' has been used in sub-section (13) of the Act, which shows that the intention of the legislator is very clear in respect of service of notice and issuance of notice. Thus it follows that the requirement of law is service of notice upon the dealer and not mere issuance of notice. The Assessing Authority assumes jurisdiction for re-assessment only when a valid statutory notice is served on the dealer. 10. In the instant case, it is true that the copy of the notice served upon the petitioner/assessee is not on the record of the Assessing Authority. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has replied the notice before the Assessing Authority on 14-08-1986 which is on the record. In this reply the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee has clearly mentioned that in the matter of your notice in Form ST-19 for the year ending March, 1983. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has replied the notice before the Assessing Authority on 14-08-1986 which is on the record. In this reply the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee has clearly mentioned that in the matter of your notice in Form ST-19 for the year ending March, 1983. It is further stated that your notice requiring the Assessee to explain as to why re-assessment in the case be not made as tax has wrongly been charged @ 2% instead of 8%. This clearly shows that proper notice was served upon the petitioner/assessee before initiating the proceedings of re-assessment in this case. 11. In the last the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee has contended that the levy of interest was not justified. He has challenged the amount of interest demanded on tax on the ground that the interest has been imposed for the period prior to the date of assessment. In support he has relied upon `Amritsari Dhaba's case'. Section 8(2) of the Act prior to its amendment reads as under:- "8(2):- If the tax or any other amount due under this Act is not paid by the dealer or any other person by whom it is payable within the period specified in demand notice. The dealer or such other person shall be liable to pay interest on the tax or other amount from the date it was payable to the date of actual payment at the following rates:- (a) If the default is for a period of not exceeding three months at 1% per month; (b) If the default is for a period exceeding three months but less than six months at 2 % per month; (c) If the default is for a period exceeding six months at 3% per month. Provided that where, as a result of an order under sections 11, 12, 24 or an order of the Court, the amount of tax or other sum on which interest was payable under this sub-section has been reduced, the interest shall be reduced accordingly and excess interst paid, if any, shall be refunded. 12. From the plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that this provision as it existed prior to amendment did not envisage for payment of interest prior to the period of demand notice. The interest can be levied from the date of demand of tax in the demand notice. 12. From the plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that this provision as it existed prior to amendment did not envisage for payment of interest prior to the period of demand notice. The interest can be levied from the date of demand of tax in the demand notice. This controversy was settled by Hon'ble High Court in case of `Amritsari Dhaba'. It was held in that case that the liability to pay interest under section 8 (2) of the Act is only if the tax is not paid within the period as specified in the demand notice. It was further held that interest becomes due only from the last date fixed from the payment of tax mentioned in the demand notice and it cannot be claimed from the date the tax was due. This clearly shows that the interest becomes due from the last date indicated in the demand notice for the payment of the tax. 13. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that no interest could have been imposed by the Assessing Authority on the petitioner/assessee prior to the date of demand notice. Thus the Assessing Authority was not justified in charging interest for the prior period of the assessment order. 14. The net result of the above findings is that re-assessment order dated 29-07-1985 passed by the Assessing Authority and duly confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 26-04-1986 is legal except in respect of levy of interest in the case which is illegal and not justified. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed in respect of levy of interest and is dismissed for the remaining aspects as observed above. The revision file be consigned to records and the files of the lower Authorities be sent back forthwith. 15. Before parting with the file I may point out here that the record of the Appellate Authority has not been produced before this forum. The Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Jammu informed that the record of the appeal was sent to Commissioner, Sales Tax, vide his office No. 228 dated 7-5-90 and the Commercial Tax Officer, Tax Planning informed this Tribunal that as per record the appeal file is not traceable. The Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Jammu informed that the record of the appeal was sent to Commissioner, Sales Tax, vide his office No. 228 dated 7-5-90 and the Commercial Tax Officer, Tax Planning informed this Tribunal that as per record the appeal file is not traceable. Also the record of the Assessing Authority which was produced before this Tribunal is incomplete in as much as the original order of re-assessment is not traceable and also the notice of re-assessment is not traceable. I have observed in number of cases that the Commercial Tax Officers and Appellate Authorities or Assessing Authorities while discharging their functions under the Act excercised quasi judicial functions which are subject to appeal/revisions. These functions are to be exercised with care and caution and the record of the case shall be maintained properly. The orders passed on each date shall be recorded specifically and a proper record is required to be maintained. Also a final reasoned order is to be passed in writing and shall be kept on the record. In order to check or test the validity of the said order, the Appellate or higher Court has to see the record of the case. It is desired that the learned Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, J&K shall issue necessary directions to all the Authorities below and make an enquiry in this matter about the non traceable of the record as stated above. After making enquiry an appropriate order may be passed against the delinquent with a copy to this Tribunal. Let a copy of this order be sent to Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, J&K, Jammu.