ORDER PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the initiation of the reassessment proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994, without serving the order of assessment. The matter relates to the assessment period from April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996. The petitioner had filed the return for the assessment period in question and the assessment proceedings were taken up by the assessing authority and the case was reserved for passing the final order of assessment. The petitioner was then served with the notice dated December 29, 2000, under section 28(1) of the Act for reopening of the assessment proceeding on the ground that for the assessment period in question certain sale and purchase escaped assessment. The petitioner submitted objection before the assessing authority on February 20, 2001, stating that he has not been communicated with the order of assessment, therefore, the reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated. The assessing authority by the order dated February 26, 2001 rejected the objection raised by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner against the order dated February 26, 2001, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner by order dated March 30, 2002 holding that the revision petition is not maintainable. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. The short issue, involved in the writ petition is as to whether the notice of reassessment under section 28(1) of the Act could have been issued to the assessee before serving the order of assessment ? In the present matter, undisputedly the impugned notice of reassessment was issued to the petitioner on December 29, 2000. By the impugned notice, the petitioner was required to appear before the assessing authority on February 16, 2001 to show cause and produce the documents and evidence in respect of the sale and purchase which allegedly escaped assessment. Undisputedly, even till the date of appearance given in the notice, the petitioner was not served with the order of assessment. Unless the order of assessment is served, assessee would not be in a position to respond to the ground on which the assessment is sought to be reopened. The order of assessment has been served upon the petitioner much later on March 3, 2001. Unless the order of assessment is served, assessee would not be in a position to respond to the ground on which the assessment is sought to be reopened. The order of assessment has been served upon the petitioner much later on March 3, 2001. Section 27 of the Act deals with the assessment of tax and provides the manner as to how the assessment shall be made and section 28 provides for reassessment in case of turnover escaping assessment where an assessment has already been made. The term "is made" occurring in sections 27 and 28 of the Act needs to be considered in the context in which it has been mentioned. It cannot be held that by mere signing of an assessment order by assessing authority the assessment is made because in such a case the assessing authority will be clothed with the right to initiate the reassessment proceeding without communicating the order of assessment and the assessee in the absence of the order of assessment would not be in a position to respond to the notice of reassessment and would not be able to show cause and justify that sale and purchase has not escaped assessment. In terms of rule 86 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Niyam, 1995 also assessment order is required to be served by hand or by post. Such a view is also supported by rule 48(1)(g) of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Niyam, 1995 which provides for manner of reassessment and reads as under : "Rule 48. Manner of assessment, reassessment and imposition of penalty. - (1) Where - (a) to (f) ... Such a view is also supported by rule 48(1)(g) of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Niyam, 1995 which provides for manner of reassessment and reads as under : "Rule 48. Manner of assessment, reassessment and imposition of penalty. - (1) Where - (a) to (f) ... (g) the sale or purchase of goods by a dealer during any period has been under-assessed or has escaped assessment or has been assessed at a lower rate or any deduction has been wrongly made therefrom or a set-off has been wrongly allowed within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 28, or sub-section (1) of section 29, as the case may be, or (h) a dealer has concealed his turnover of sales or purchases in respect of any goods or has furnished a false return, then in every such case, the assessing authority shall serve on the dealer a notice which shall, as far as may be, be in form 47 specifying the default, escapement or concealment, as the case may be, and calling upon him to show cause by such date, ordinarily not less than thirty days from the date of service of the notice as may be fixed in that behalf, why he should not be assessed or reassessed to tax and/or penalty should not be imposed upon him and directing him to produce on the said date his books of account and other documents which the assessing authority may require and any evidence which he may wish to produce in support of his objection : Provided that no such notice shall be necessary where the dealer, having appeared before the assessing authority, waives such notice. (2) On the date fixed in the notice issued under sub-rule (1) or in case the notice is waived on such date which may be fixed in this behalf, the assessing authority shall, after considering the objections raised by the dealer and examining such evidence as may be produced by him and after taking such other evidence as may be available, assess or reassess, the dealer to tax and/or impose penalty or pass any other suitable order." This rule also pre-supposes service of assessment order before issuing notice of reassessment since it requires the authority to specify defaults, escapement or concealment in the notice. In the present matter even till date fixed by the notice of reassessment in terms of sub-rule (2) of rule 48, the order of assessment was not served upon the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Filter Co. reported in [1997] 107 STC 210 (SC); [1998] 9 SCC 234, while considering the pari materia provision under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 has expressed that the provision of reassessment applies only if an assessment had already been made and in case where there has been no assessment, the provision cannot be invoked. The similar issue had come up before the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Smt. Jijeebai Shinde v. Commissioner of Gift-tax [1986] 157 ITR 122, wherein the issue was in respect of initiation of suo motu revisional proceeding before communication of the order of assessment. The Division Bench of this court after taking note of judgment of the Supreme Court and the earlier judgment of the High Court took the view that : "Thus, the principle, which could be deduced from these authorities is the essential requirement of communication of an order passed by the assessing authority to the assessee concerned. It is not in dispute that the assessment order dated March 30, 1979, was not served on the assessee at least till the time the Commissioner of Gift-tax initiated proceedings under section 24(2) of the Act. It is thus clear that there was no valid assessment order communicated to the assessee in existence so as to entitle the Commissioner to invoke the jurisdiction under section 24(2) of the Act and exercise powers of suo motu revision therein." Thus in view of the aforesaid analysis and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Smt. Jijeebai Shinde [1986] 157 ITR 122 (MP), in the facts of the present case, we quash the reassessment initiated by the impugned notice dated December 29, 2000, by giving liberty to issue fresh notice of reassessment in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. However, no orders as to costs.