The period prescribed under s. 32(2) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 does not apply to a fresh order to be made by the Dy. CIT in pursuance of a remand order made by the Tribunal.

V. RAMASWAMI, J.

The respondent-assessees were dealers in hides and skins. They were unlicensed dealer. In the view that unlicensed dealers were not liable to pay sales-tax, the Dy. CTO, Ambur held that the entire turnover of Rs. 5, 17, 337.36 was exempt from taxation and made an order accordingly on 13th June, 1958. Subsequent to this order the Supreme Court reversing the decision of this Court held that unlicensed dealers in hides and skins are liable to be taxed at multi point on their purchase turnover. The Dy. CIT, therefore, invoking his powers under s. 32 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) issued a notice to the assessees calling upon them to show cause as to why the taxable turnover should not be revised including the entire turnover exempt as taxable. After a consideration of the objections filed by the assessees, by an order dt. 3rd July, 1961, the Dy. CIT, Coimbatore, refixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 5, 17, 337.36. The assessees preferred an appeal to the Tribunal under s. 36 of the Act. Though the Tribunal confirmed the view that the turnover of unlicensed dealers in hides and skins were not exempt and that therefore liable to pay sales-tax allowed the assessees to raise a new contention for the first time before the Tribunal that some of the transaction were export sales or sales in the course of export and therefore not liable to sales-tax under the Act. Since the consideration of this question involved permitting the assessees to adduce further evidence and a consideration of the same on merits, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Dy. CIT with a direction to consider the question of sales in the course of export. This order of the Tribunal was made on 24th July, 1963. While the proceedings were at this stage, the Joint CTO, Ambur, purported to consider the issue by an order dt. 3rd June, 1966 and held that the transactions were not liable to be taxed. The Dy. CIT considered that this order of the Joint CTO, was without jurisdiction as the mater was not remanded to the Joint CTO, by the Tribunal. Holding that the Joint CTO's, order dt. 3rd June, 1966 was without jurisdiction and null and void, the Dy. CIT set aside that order by his order; dt. 14th Dec., 1966; thereafter the Dy. CIT proceeded to consider the case in pursuance of the Tribunal's order of remand. After issuing notice to the assessees and hearing them, by an order dt. 3rd Jan., 1967 the Dy. CIT held in the remanded proceedings that none of the turnover was in the course of export and that the entire turnover was therefore taxable. The assessees referred an appeal to the Tribunal.

2. The main contention of the appellants before the Tribunal was that the order dt. 3rd Jan., 1967 of the Dy. CIT was made beyond the period prescribed under s. 32(2) and that therefore, it is illegal. This point found favour with the Tribunal. The State has filed this Revision Petition.

3. There can be no dispute that the order of the Joint CTO, , dt. 3rd June, 1966 was without jurisdiction. The order of remand by the Tribunal was to the Dy. CIT had therefore the mater could not have been dealt with by the Joint CTO, . The Dy. CIT was therefore right in taking up the remanded case himself and dealing with it. The only question therefore in this Revision Petition also is as to whether the order of the Dy. CIT dt. 3rd Jan., 1967 was made beyond the period of limitation. Under. s. 32, the Dy. CIT may of his own motion call for and examine the order passed by the appropriate authority and pass such order thereon as he thinks fit. The provision which prescribed the period of limitation is contained in s. 32(2) and that reads as follows :-

32(2) The Dy. CIT shall not pass any order under sub-s. (1), if-a) the time for appeal against the order has not expired ;

(b) the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the AAC or the Tribunal, or of a Revision in the High Court; or

(c) more than five years have expired after the passing of