ORDER : The present petition has been filed assailing action of the Revenue Authorities invoking sub-Section (5) of Section 6 of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 for reassessment for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05. After the Assessing Authority reassessed for the respective financial years in the ordinary course, the petitioner/company was supposed to prefer appeal against the order of reassessment. But under the legal advice extended to it, the order of reassessment for the respective financial years came to be challenged by the petitioner/company directly before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on the preliminary issue that since the amendment has been made introducing Sub-section (5) to Section 6 w.e.f. 20.08.2005 as such the Assessing Authority was not holding any competence to make reassessment for the previous years and if that is being permitted, that will amount to retrospective application to the provision which was neither contemplated nor been permitted under the statute to the Assessing Authority. 2. The High Court after revisiting the Scheme of the Act, 1976 and sub-Section (5) to Section 6, in particular, arrived at a conclusion that the reassessment could have been made at least of previous five years to the amendment made and may not be considered to be retrospective in application and accordingly taking assistance of the judgment in the case of “Addl. Commissioner (Legal) & Anr. Versus Jyoti Traders & Anr.” (1999) 2 SCC 77 recorded the following observations: “7. On the question of the retrospective effect of the provision for reassessment, we need not labour much since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.C. Parashar (supra) and (1999) 2 SCC 77 (Addl. Commissioner (Legal) & Anr. Versus Jyoti Traders & Anr.). The reassessment under sub-Section (5) of Section 6 has been taken up within the period of limitation for the subject assessment years, except that of 2000-01. We hence reject the contention of the assessee insofar as the limitation is concerned with respect to assessment years 2001-02 to 2004- 05. 3. Commissioner (Legal) & Anr. Versus Jyoti Traders & Anr.). The reassessment under sub-Section (5) of Section 6 has been taken up within the period of limitation for the subject assessment years, except that of 2000-01. We hence reject the contention of the assessee insofar as the limitation is concerned with respect to assessment years 2001-02 to 2004- 05. 3. The High Court finally arrived at a conclusion that the reassessment made by the Assessing Authority for the year 2000-01 was beyond the period of 5 years and accordingly reassessment could not have been made and partly relief was granted to the petitioner/company so far as the reassessment year 2000-01 is concerned, but at the same time upheld the reassessment’s made for the subsequent years 2001-02 to 2004-05. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/company brought to our notice that for the subsequent assessment for the years 2008-09 to 2012-13, the appellate authority after revisiting the matter has remitted it to the Assessing Authority with certain directions and has informed this Court after assessment for the respective years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are pending adjudication with the Assessing Authority at the present moment. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties for quite some time, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned dated 29.01.2019 but since the petitioner/company has not challenged the reassessment for the years 2001-02 to 2004-05 on merits and right of appeal indeed was available to it, we consider appropriate to observe that if appeal is being preferred by the petitioner/company within 60 days from today before the Appellate Authority against the order of reassessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05, the same shall be treated to be within a period of limitation and the Appellate Authority may examine the appeal on its own on merits in accordance with law. It is further made clear that all contentions under the law are available for the petitioner/company to be raised before the Appellate Authority. 6. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed with above observations. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.