Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.—All these three petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that identical controversy is involved in all these three writ petitions. The facts from Writ Petition (Tax) No. 799 of 1993 are being taken.

3. The petitioner is a registered dealer and was carrying on the business of food-grain etc. in its own account as well as on Commission agency. For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessment was completed by the Sales Tax Officer, Mahoba under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and under the Central Sales Tax Act. Thereafter, the department initiated proceedings under Section 21 of the Act for reassessment on the ground that the turn-over of the petitioner has escaped assessment. The petitioner filed appeal against reassessment order before Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Sales Tax Kanpur, who vide its order dated 16th January, 1990 allowed the appeal and set aside the reassessment order passed under Section 21 of the Act for the assessment year 1984-85. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Mahoba purporting to be under Section 21(4-A) under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Questioning the legality and validity of the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. In the writ petition, the main challenge is on the ground of limitation i.e. the impugned order has been passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It is further stated that the limitation for completion of the assessment under Section 21(2) is four years. The said period of limitation of four years has been expired in the year 1989. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that sub-section (4-A) was inserted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1992 w.e.f. 1st January, 1992 and is not retrospective in operation. It will not apply to such cases where period of limitation has already expired.

5. Controverting the allegations made in the petition, a counter-affidavit has been filed alleging that the impugned assessment order has been passed after show-cause notice and the writ petition challenging the same is not maintainable as against the impugned order, the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of appeal. Section 21(4-A) has been inserted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1992 on 17th March, 1992. It will apply to all those cases where the assessment order is quashed on the ground of want of jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority or any other like ground by any competent Court or authority.

6. Heard Sri Ram Kishore Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri C.B. Tripathi, Special Counsel for the State of U.P. on behalf of the respondents.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on a true and proper construction of Section 21(4-A) of the Act; it will apply to only in such cases where the assessment order has been set aside for want of jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority or any like other ground. Submission is that the assessment order has not been set aside in the present case and as such, the respondent could not invoke sub-section (4-A) of Section 21 of the Act.

8. In reply, it was submitted that sub-section (4-A) opens with words “if an order of assessment is quashed ..................). The words “assessment would include reassessment also”. Here, the reassessment order has been set aside on 16th January, 1990 for want of service of notice by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the resort to Section 21(4-A) is justified.

9. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Section 21 of the Act deals with assessment of tax on the turnover not assessed during the year. The said section was amended drastically by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1992. For the sake of convenience, Section 21 is reproduced below:

“21. Assessment of tax on the turnov