1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals) (Appellate Authority), Jammu, passed by the latter in an appeal which the appellant had filed against an earlier order of the Ld. Dy. Sales Tax Commissioner, Checkpost, Lakhanpur Jammu. 2. The string of incidents, put in a sequence, as it emerges from the study of the file, under consideration, are, briefly as under: On 10-04-2008 a truck bearing No. HR 55-C-4028 of Transport Agency S M/s Om Logistics limited was put to physical check. As per the documents accompanying the goods, the appellant, consigned, under invoices 2,3 & 4 dated 09-04-2008, Menthol Flakes to M/s Symrise Pvt. Ltd. Old Mahabali Puram Road, Semmancher Chennai. The Physical verification of the goods revealed that three drums were filled with some kind of waste product/ wax (Menthol Flavoured) instead of Menthol Flakes. The Ld. Dy. Commissioner treating the documents, accompanying the goods, as false in respect of nature of goods, issued statutory notices. Considering the objections, filed in response to the notice, by Shri R.L. Gupta, Advocate the Ld. Dy. Commissioner levied penalty under sub-section (5) of section 67 of the J&K VAT Act, 2005. 3. The appellant has assailed the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground interalia that the worthy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, J&K has erred in upholding the penalty order of the Ld. Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Lakhanpur, which is bad in law being barred by limitation. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and I have given my thoughtful consideration to the material on record. 5. From the perusal of the memorandum of appeal it is apparent that the issue of the order, of the Ld. Dy. Commissioner being bad in law as barred by limitation, has in substance been there in the memorandum of appeal and yet no finding has been returned on this issue. The excerpts of Rule 71(d) of the Jammu & Kashmir Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, quite germane to the issue in question are reproduced herein below verbatim:- 71-(d):-On the date specified in the notice "the officer" shall consider the objections raised and the evidence adduced, if any. The excerpts of Rule 71(d) of the Jammu & Kashmir Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, quite germane to the issue in question are reproduced herein below verbatim:- 71-(d):-On the date specified in the notice "the officer" shall consider the objections raised and the evidence adduced, if any. Thereafter he may cause such other enquiries to be made as he considers necessary, and pass an order in writing releasing the goods or levying the penalty within 30 days from the date specified in the notice of hearing provided that the Commissioner may for cogent reasons allow him to pass the order after the said period of 30 days. 6. This Rule makes it abundantly clear that on the date, specified in the notice, the officer has to consider the objections, and thereafter, if he thinks it proper, in his wisdom, to make any enquiry that he may consider necessary. After proceeding thus he may pass an order releasing goods and levying penalty within 30 days from the date specified in the notice. This will, however, be subject to any cogent condition the Ld. Commissioner may extend the period by 30 more days. 7. The Assessing Authority issued notice, in Form VAT-66, to the dealer, on the 15th of April, 2008, directing the dealer to appear before him on, or before, 30-04-2008, showing cause as to why an order levying the penalty be not made. In response to this notice Sh. R.L. Gupta, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the dealer and filed written arguments. He also requested the Ld. Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Lakhanpur to conclude the proceedings. The said authority held him liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 87, 450/-. The order levying penalty was made on 31-5-2008 i.e. after the period of 30 days as prescribed by Rule 71(d) cited above. The terms of Rule 71(d) are mandatory. The said Rule requires the order to be passed within the period of 30 days only from the date specified in the notice, subject, however, to the rider that this period could be extended by 30 days by an order passed by Ld. Commissioner for cogent reasons. There is nothing on record to show that this period of 30 days was stretched to any further length by the orders of the Ld. Commissioner. Therefore the Ld. Dy. Commissioner had to follow the Rule position in its rigor and vigor. Commissioner for cogent reasons. There is nothing on record to show that this period of 30 days was stretched to any further length by the orders of the Ld. Commissioner. Therefore the Ld. Dy. Commissioner had to follow the Rule position in its rigor and vigor. In the authority not following this Rule a valuable right has accrued to the dealer since the order has been passed after the prescribed period. No finding has been returned on the issue of limitation by the Ld. Commissioner though it has been there in form and substance in the memorandum of appeal. The issue of limitation could be decided by the Ld. Appellate Authority suo motto also even if the dealer had not raised such a plea in the memorandum of appeal. Rule 79 (c) of the Jammu and Kashmir Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 makes it clear that the Appellate Authority shall in its order mention all the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal and any other additional grounds allowed during the course of the appellate proceedings. What requires to be reiterated here is that the issue of limitation has not been decided by the Ld. Commissioner. The order of the Appellate Authority cannot, therefore stand and sustain and is accordingly set aside. The case is remanded to the Appellate Authority who will consider the issue of limitation. Records, summoned if any, be returned forthwith. File shall be consigned to records after its due completion.