1. Special leave granted.
2. These matters arise under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (1 of 1959). The assessment years are 1986-87 and 1987-88. The assessment orders were made in respect of these two years on 3-3-1988 and 15-2-1989 respectively. A notice under Section 16 of the Act proposing to reopen the assessments in respect of the said two assessment years was issued on 14-7-1993 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Karaikudi. The contention of the asses-see is that this notice is beyond five years prescribed by Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act and hence barred. The notice is undoubtedly issued beyond five years but the respondent's case is that it is not barred because of the provisions contained in Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 16. For appreciating the respondent's contention, a few facts need to be noted : By GOMs No. 637 dated 7-6-1982 read with Notification No. II(1)/ CTRE/116/77 dated 16-4-1977, the Government of Tamil Nadu conferred upon the Enforcement Wing Officers of the Commercial Tax Department the powers of the assessing officers under the Act. Purporting to act in exercise of the powers so conferred, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), Karaikudi issued a notice in Form XII calling upon the appellant to produce certain records in connection with the inquiry under the Act pending before him. The notice is dated 24-2-1990. Soon after receiving the said notice, the appellant approached the Madras High Court by way of two Writ Petitions Nos. 4811 and 4812 of 1990. He impleaded not only the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), Karaikudi as a respondent (1st respondent) but also the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Karaikudi as the second respondent. In the writ petitions, the petitioner filed two interlocutory applications, WMPs Nos. 7428 to 7431 of 1990, praying for an injunction "restraining the respondents from implementing or enforcing Notification No. II(1)/CTRE/116/77 dated 16-4-1977 and the connected notification in GOMs No. 637 dated 7-6-1982 empowering the Enforcement Wing Officers of the Commercial Taxes Department to act as assessing authority or in any manner making assessment, levying taxes and penalties and recovering the same from the petitioner, insofar as the petitioner is concerned for the Assessment Years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 pending disposal of the writ petition". It is relevant to notice that the appellant sought to restrain both the regular assessing office as well as the Enforcement Wing Officer (exercising the powers of the assessing officer) from taking any proceedings for making assessments or levying taxes or penalty against the appellant. An injunction as prayed for was granted on 20-4-1990 which was vacated only on 30-4-1993. Thus during the period, 20-4-1990 to 30-4-1993, no assessment proceedings could be taken against the appellant either by the regular Deputy Commercial Tax Officer or by the Enforcement Wing Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Hence, this period is liable to be excluded while computing the period of 5 years. This is exactly the provision in Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 16. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the impugned notice dated 14-7-1993 issued under Section 16 of the Act is well within the limitation. We agree with the said opinion.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Dattaram Advertising (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1991) 81 STC 394 (Kant) but there the relevant facts are altogether different. The principle of that decision can have no relevance herein.
4. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.