The proceedings for the determination of the escaped turnover must commence within the stipulated period, and 'assess' includes the proceedings leading to the final order of assessment. The final order itself can be passed beyond the stipulated period as long as the proceedings commenced within the time limit.

1. The petitioner in this Tax Revision Case is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act, 1963 (the 'Act'). The tax relates to the year 1968-69. The question raised by the assessee is whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the revised assessment dated 23 111973 made under S.19 of the Act was not time-barred.

2. The original assessment under S.17 was made on 30 41970. Subsequently notices dated 15 21973 and 6 31973 were issued to the assessee in terms of S.19. The assessee filed its objections on 20 31973. Rejecting the objections, a revised order of assessment in respect of the escaped turnover for the year 1968-69 was made by Sales-tax Officer on 213 1973. This order was challenged by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who by his order dated 29 51973 held that the assessee was not accorded a proper opportunity of being heard. The order challenged was accordingly set aside and the Salestax Officer was directed to pass a fresh order. Notice dated 27 81973 was thereupon issued to the assessee. The assessee replied to the notice on 28 91973 raising various objections. One of the principal objections was that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard as directed by the order of remand. A revised order of assessment was made by the Sales-tax Officer on 23 111973. This order was also challenged by the assessee contending that, notwithstanding the earlier direction in the order of remand, no effective opportunity was given to it and the second revised order was also invalid. The contention regarding lack of proper opportunity was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who by his order dated 10 51774 once again remanded the case to the Sales-tax Officer for fresh disposal in compliance with bis direction regarding natural justice. This order of remand by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was however challenged by the assessee in appeal before the Kerala Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal. The principal contention of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the revised order of assessment dated 23 111973 was time-barred and consequently the order of remand dated 10 5 1974 made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was invalid. In the present proceedings we are concerned only with this objection.

3. Relying upon the decision in The Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam v. Sudarsanan Iyengar & Sons [1970] 25 STC. 252, the Tribunal held that the revised order of assessment dated 23-11-1973 was not time-barred and that the order of remand dated 10-5-1974 could not be said to be invalid on that score.

4. As we stated earlier, the assessment order under S.17 was made on 30 41970. An assessment under S, 19 in respect of escaped turnover has to be made within 4 years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. Sub-section (1) of the section provides that at any, time within that period the assessing authority may

"proceed to determine to the best of its judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment to tax or has been under-assessed or has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable or the deduction that has been wrongly made and assess the tax payable on such turnover after issuing a notice on the dealer and after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary:

Provided that before making an assessment under this sub-section the dealer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being beard."

Accordingly the year to which the tax relates being 1968-1969, the 4-year period mentioned under S.19(1) expired on 31-3-1973. According to the assessee the revised order of assessment dated 23-11-1973 is therefore hopelessly out of time. We do not think so for a moment

5. As stated earlier two notices under S.19 were issued on 15 21973 and 6 31973 respectively. With those notices the proceedings under S.19 commenced. The subsequent orders referred to earlier were a continuation of the proceedings which commenced with t