JUDGMENT

Jagdish Sahai, J. - The question referred by the judge (Revisions) Sales Tax to this Court for its opinion is :

Whether in the circumstances and on facts of the case the application in revision filed by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. against assessment order eras barred by time ?

We differed in respect of the answer to this question. One of us (Jagdish Sakai, J.) answered the question in the affirmative against the department and in favour of the assessee. The other learned judge (Beg, J.) constituting the Bench, answered the first part of the question in the negative and opined that the period of limitation for the Commissioner to prefer a revision application under Section 10 (3) (i) of the Act will not start from the date of the assessment order. He answered the second part of the question also in the negative by saying that the period of limitation would not commence to run from any date lying within the discretion of or depending upon the wishes of the assessing officer, but would commence in accordance with Section 10 (3-B) , from the actual date on which the Commissioner has been duly apprised of the contents of the assessment order in a mode which may be deemed to be "service" upon him. There being a difference of opinion, the matter was referred to Verma, J. who considered the following question :

"Whether, under the circumstances of the case, starting point of limitation for the, department to prefer a. revision against the original assessment order' would start from;'the date of assessment order or would start according to the discretion of the assessing officer or the department from the time the assessing officer wishes to apprise the department about the passing of the assessment as in this case."

Verma, J. answered the first part of the question in the affirmative and the second part of the question in the negative, against the department and in favour of the dealer, with the result that the revision application filed by the Commissioner, Sales Tax was time-barred. We answer the question accordingly. Let the record of the case be sent back to the judge (Revisions) Sales Tax for passing an order in conformity with the decision of this Court. The Commissioner, Sales Tax shall pay a sum of Rs. 100- to the assessee by way of costs.

On 4 Difference of opinion between Jagdish Sahai and M. H. Beg, JJ.

S. K. Verma, J.-2. This reference has been listed before me because of difference of opinion between Jagdish Sahai. J., and M, H. Beg, J. The question .that requires answer is as follows :

"Whether, under the circumstances. of the case starting point of limitation for the department to prefer a revision against the original assessment order would start from the date of assessment order or would start according to the discretion of the assessing officer or the department from the time the assessing officer wishes to apprise the department about the passing of the assessment as in this case ?"

Jagdish Sahai, J., answered the question in the affirmative. The question, however, has two-parts and if the answer is simply in the affirmative then the answer to one part of the question becomes contradictory of the answer to the other part. Having answered the question in the affirmative, Jagdish Sahai, J:, held .that the revision filed by the Commissioner was barred by time.: M. H. Beg, J., took a contrary view. He answered both parts of the question in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Commissioner and against,the assessee,,

3. The power of revision is to be found in Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . Section 10 of the Act reads as follows :

"10. Power of Revision (1) . The State Government shall -'appoint as Revising Authority a person qualified under clause (2) of Article 217 of the Constitution for appointment as judge of a High Court.

(2) The appellate authority appointed under Section 9 shall be under the superintendence and control of the Revising Author