JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act as well as Orissa Sales Tax Act dealing with petrol, diesel, kendu leaves and jute, having its place of business at Dhenkanal under the administrative territorial jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Dhenkanal-I Circle, Angul. The petitioner was initially assessed under Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, (in short “CST(O) Rules”) in the year 1991 by the Sales Tax Officer-opposite party no.3, who, vide order dated 05.03.1993, after examining the books of accounts and related documents, allowed the claim of exemption made by the petitioner under Section 6(2) of the Central Act and determined to refund an amount of Rs.12,814/-. But, subsequently, on receipt of objection raised by the audit party questioning grant of exemption under the Central Act, opposite party no.3 reopened the assessment, called upon the petitioner to participate in the reassessment proceeding and, by order dated 25.08.1993, disallowed the claim of exemption and demanded a sum of Rs.7,696/-under the Central Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-II Range, Cuttack-opposite party no.2 initiated a proceeding under Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules to revise the reassessment already made, vide order dated 25.08.1993, in the year 1990-91 and held, by order dated 05.09.1996, that claim for exemption made by the petitioner is not allowed and that the entire claim of exemption on the said transaction was put to sales tax under the Central Act. Against the said revisional order dated 05.09.1996, the petitioner preferred an appeal before opposite party no.1, who dismissed the same by order dated 05.06.1999 without assigning any reason, hence this application. 2. Sri J. Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner raised various questions, but confined his argument only to the question of limitation stating inter alia that the order dated 05.09.1996 passed by opposite party no.2 is beyond the prescribed period of limitation as provided under Section 23 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act read with Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. It is contended that Rule 80 provides for suo motu revision by the Commissioner of Sales Tax within a period of three years from the date of passing of the order by the Sales Tax Officer, but the reassessment having been made by the Sales Tax Officer on 25.08.1993, the order dated 05.09.1996 passed by opposite party no.2 is beyond the period of limitation and, as such, the same is liable to be quashed. 3. Dr. C.R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that under the Orissa Sles Tax Act and Orissa Sales Tax Rules initiation of suo motu revision should be within three years and the conclusion can be thereafter. It is further contended that limitation of three years would apply only to the first part of the Rule which relates to calling for the records of the proceedings and not with regard to passing of the revisional order as the two sections of the Rule are joined with the word ‘and’ would mean that limitation of three years would be applicable for the first part only and not for the second part which is for passing of the order. 4. We have heard Sri J.Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri S.K. Mohanty for the petitioner as well as Dr. C.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record. 5. The fact delineated above being undisputed, for just and proper adjudication of the case in hand, it may be proper to reproduce the relevant Section 23(4)(a) of the O.S.T. Act and the relevant Rule-80 of the O.S.T. Rules. “23. Appeal and Revision- xxx xxx xxx (4) (a) Subject to such rules as may be made and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Commissioner may, upon application by a dealer (or person) or on his own motion revise any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any person other than the Tribunal, appointed under sub-section (3) of Section 3 to assist him : Provided that the Commissioner shall not entertain any such application for revision if the dealer (or person) filing the same having a remedy by way of appeal under sub-section (1), or sub-section (3) did not avail of such remedy or the application is not filed within the prescribed period. xxx xxx xxx “Rule 80. xxx xxx xxx “Rule 80. Revision by the Commissioner Suo Motu- The Commissioner may on his own motion at any time within three years from the date of passing of any order by the Sales Tax Officer or within two years from the date of passing of any order by the Additional Commissioner, Special Additional Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, call for records of the proceedings in which such order was passed and if he considers that any order passed therein is erroneous in-so-far-as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue he may after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary revise any such order: Provided that the Commissioner shall not revise any order under this rule- (1) Where an appeal against the order is pending before the appellate authority under section 23, or (2) Where time limit for filing an appeal under Section 23 has not expired.” 6. In view of the aforementioned provisions, taking into consideration the factual aspect of the case in hand, the only dispute which is to be resolved by this Court in the present writ petition is with regard to interpretation of Section 23(4)(a) of O.S.T. Act read with Rule 80 of the O.S.T. Rules wherein the limitation for the suo motu revision has been provided for. 7. The power of the Commissioner to revise an order either on application by the dealer on his own motion has been provided for under sub-section (4)(a) of Section 23 of the O.S.T. Act which is subject to limitation provided under Rule 80 of the Rules. There is no dispute with regard to the power of the Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceedings for revision. 8. The only question which remains for determination of this Court is as to whether under Rule 80 of the Rules, revisional proceedings are to be concluded from the date of passing of the final orders passed within a period of three years sought to be revised or the proceedings if initiated within three years can be concluded beyond the period of three years. 9. 9. For the purpose of this case, the relevant Rule 80 can be read in the manner that the Commissioner may on his own motion at any time within three years from the date of passing of any order by the Sales Tax Officer……., call for records of the proceedings in which such order was passed and if he considers that any order passed therein is erroneous………he may after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary revise any such order. 10. Any interpretation contrary to the above would mean that even though initiation of proceedings for revision may be done within three years, final order can be passed after years of such initiation which would keep the matter hanging for years together, which cannot be the intention of the Act. The purpose of Rule 80 is to give finality to the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Asst. Commissioner within a specified period and the same can be done after proper interpretation is given that the proceedings are to conclude and revision orders passed within a period specified in the Rule. 11. In our view, the entire Rule 80 cannot be read in a disjoined manner. On reading of the Rule in a joint manner would make it clear that for revising an order within a period of three years after providing opportunity to the assessee and calling for the records, the revision order itself has to be passed within a period of three years. 12. The decision of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Nilei Sahoo, (1961) XII STC 728 as relied on by Dr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as the same has been rendered while interpreting the provisions of Section 12(7) of the OST Act which only dealt with the re–opening of the assessment within a period of 36 months and there was no mention in the said Section with regard to passing of the of the final order within a period of 36 months. As such, since the wordings of Section 12(7) of the O.S.T. Act as then stood are distinct from those of Rule 80 of the Rules which is interpreted in this case. As such, since the wordings of Section 12(7) of the O.S.T. Act as then stood are distinct from those of Rule 80 of the Rules which is interpreted in this case. The said decision would not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case. 13. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that passing of the order dated 05.09.1996 in Annexure-3 which was beyond the period of three years from the date of the order sought to be revised, is liable to be quashed as also the order of the Commissioner dated 05.06.1999 in Annexure-4. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition stands allowed. The orders dated 05.09.1996 in Annexure-3 and dated 05.06.1999 in Annexure-4 are accordingly quashed. No order as to cost.