G. C. BHARUKA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been referred under section 23 (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated December 11, 1996 passed by the Karnataka Appellate tribunal, Bangalore, remanding the matter to the assessing officer for making fresh assessment for the year 1991-92 after issuing proper pre-assessment notice.

( 2 ) FOR the year in question, the petitioner had filed its annual return on May 19, 1992 and as per section 12 (5) of the Act no assessment for the year could have been made after the period of 3 years from the said date,. e. , after May 19, 1995. Admittedly, the assessing officer had completed the assessment on April 4, 1995. . e. , within the period of limitation. But the order of assessment could be served on the petitioner only on June 3, 1995. Under these circumstances, the petitioner both before the first appellate authority as also before the Tribunal had raised a contention that since the assessment order was not served on him within the aforesaid period of limitation, therefore it should be held as time-barred and accordingly it was a nullity in the eye of law. The contention was negatived by both the appellate authorities.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon the judgments of the supreme Court, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh V. M. Ramakishtaiah and Co. [1994] 93 stc 406 and that of the Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works v. State of kerala [1988] 69 STC 62, has tried to substantiate the issue of limitation. Whereas, Smt. Sujatha, learned High Court Government Pleader, has disputed the proposition by placing reliance on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. v. State of andhra Pradesh [1997 ]104 STC497 (AP ).

( 4 ) FOR examining the rival contentions, we would first cull out subsection (5) of section 12 of the act, which is to the following effect :

"section 12 : Returns and assessment.- (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (5) No assessment under this section for any year shall be made after a period of three years from the date on which the return under sub-section (1) for that year is submitted by a dealer : provided that assessment proceedings relating to any year ending before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985, in respect of which a return under sub-section (1) has been submitted, before such commencement : provided further that nothing in this sub-section limiting the time within which assessment may be made, shall apply to an assessment made in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings, directions or orders made under sections 20, 21, 22 or 22a or any judgment or order made by any court. "

On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is quite clear that the bar of limitation created herein is in respect of making of assessment and not with reference to issuance or service of the assessment order. The difference between the expressions "made", "issued" or "served" is manifestly clear in the linguistic sense. It is a well-settled canon of interpretation that unless there are compelling circumstances like opting for either of the two possible meaning of a word or expression, the court should adhere to the natural meaning of the words. Therefore, in our opinion, there does not appear to be any occasion to read the word "made" as "issued" or "served". The intendment of the Legislature appears to be clear that the assessing officer should complete the assessment within the prescribed period or as provided under sub-section (7) of section 12 of the Act, the assessment will be deemed to have been completed by operation of law.

( 5 ) NOW coming to the decision cited at the Bar, so far as the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah and Co. [1994] 93 STC 406 is concerned, their lordships on the facts before them held that though the assessment order purported to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document