JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, C.J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. The revisionist has filed by the present revision seeking to quash the judgment and order passed by the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Dehradun in Second Appeal No. 55 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the Appellate Order No. 09/2023 (Assessment Year 2013-14) (State), passed under Section 25(7), read with Section 29(4) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is engaged in manufacture and sale of Retread Rubber. The revisionist established a factory to manufacture Retread Rubber at Salimpur, Rajputana, Roorkee in March, 2010. The process of retreading, i.e. manufacturing ‘Retread Rubber’ involves removing the old worn-out tread from a worn-out tyer, i.e. putting a new rubber surface on the outer part of the worn-out tyre. The “Retread Rubber” in layman’s language, is a “Procured Rubber” which is used for retreading of Tyre & Tubes. The classification dispute, as to whether the self manufactured retread rubber would be classified in Schedule II(B), i.e. covered under Section 4(2)(b)(i)(b) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and exigible to tax @ 5% or whether the “Retread Rubber” would be an unclassified item and exigible @ 13.5% (being a residual entry) and covered under Section 4(2)(b)(i)(d), has a chequered history; in as much as, the said controversy was settled, in a series of disputes raised by rival parties, i.e. the Assessee and the Department, before various adjudication/appellate forums. 4. Before the First Appellate Authority, the tax liability on the sale of “Retread Rubber” being 5%, instead of 13.5% and the claim of the ITC were held to be justified by the First Appellate Authority. The Business Man’s Appeal was accepted by the First Appellate Authority on the main disputed points, and the above said facts with respect to liability to pay the tax @ 5% being accepted by the First Appellate Authority are not being disputed by the counsel for the appellant Mr. P.R. Mullick, today in the Court. 5. The Business Man’s Appeal was accepted by the First Appellate Authority on the main disputed points, and the above said facts with respect to liability to pay the tax @ 5% being accepted by the First Appellate Authority are not being disputed by the counsel for the appellant Mr. P.R. Mullick, today in the Court. 5. In the above said background, in the second Appeal before the Tribunal, the main legal question for consideration was “whether the Notification dated 31st March, 2016 (Act No. 2 of 2016), in so far as amending Section 29(4), was to have a prospective implication and could not be applied retrospectively for the Assessment Year 2013-14.” 6. In the present case, as per the amendment made in Section 29(4), as reproduced at Page-74 of the Paper-Book, if the Commissioner on his own or on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Authority is satisfied that it is just and expedient so to do, he may authorise the Assessing Authority in that behalf, and then such assessment or reassessment not made after the expiry of six years after the end of such assessment year or after the expiry of four years from the date of the order sought to be reassessed. 7. In the present case, as per the order was passed on 17.11.2017 passed by the Assessing Authority, four years limitation expires on 17.11.2021 and the notice of reassessment was issued on 2nd August, 2021, which was before expiry of four years as per Section 29(4) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, as amended in 2016, and hence, for all intents and purposes, the proceeding of reassessment was initiated within the limitation. 8. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the Joint Commissioner did not have the power to exercise revisional power. On this aspect, the Definition Section 2(9) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which is at Page-6 of the Paper-Book, reads as under: “(9) “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, appointed by the State Government and includes an Additional Commissioner and a Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax appointed by the Government.” 9. Further as per Section 52 of the aforesaid Act, the revisional power of the Commissioner can be exercised by any officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner as has been authorised on his behalf by the State Government. 10. Further as per Section 52 of the aforesaid Act, the revisional power of the Commissioner can be exercised by any officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner as has been authorised on his behalf by the State Government. 10. Another argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the order dated 17.11.2021 could not have been revised as per the Notification of 2016 as the Assessment Year was 2013-14. This argument is liable to be rejected as the language of Section 29(4) of the amended Act is very clear that four years’ limitation is to be from the date of the impugned order and the impugned order in the present case was passed on 17.11.2017 after the Notification of amendment in 2016. For all intents and purposes, this order was covered by the Notification, and the Joint Commissioner had the power to initiate revisional proceedings within four years. The revisional powers were initiated on 02.8.2021, which is within four years. 11. Hence, as per Definition Section 2(9) and Section 52 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the Joint Commissioner had the power to exercise the revisional power and it was not beyond his jurisdiction. Hence, no substantial question of law arises in this Revision and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.