Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 367 of 1969. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 28	 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Civil Case No. 188 of 1967. I. N. Shroff	 for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde	 J. This appeal by special leave arises from the deci sion of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a reference under section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act	 1959. The reference was made by the Board of Revenue. After stating the case	 the Board of Revenue referred the following question to the High Court for its opinion. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Sales Tax acted illegally in exercising his powers ' of revision under section 39(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act	 1958 in respect of the assessment order dated 28 12 1	961 which was passed in respect of the returns submitted on 30 1 1958 and 17 6 1958 and on the basis of the notice in form XI issued on 29 8 1961 ?" The High Court answered that question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by that order	 the Commissioner of Sales Tax	 Madhya Pradesh has come up in appeal to this Court. The assessee	 M/s. Amarnath Ajitkumar was a registered dealer under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act	 Samv. 2007. For the period from July 1	 1957 to 31st March	 1958	 the period with which we are concerned in this appeal	 the assessee submitted its return for the second and third quarters on January 30 	 1958 and for the fourth quarter on 17th June 1958. These returns were made under section 9(3) of the . The sales tax concerned in the present case was that leviable under the . But the procedure to by adopted in the matter of assessment and collect ion was that prescribed in the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act Samv. The Madhya Bharat Act was repealed by the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act	 1959	 which came into force on April 1	 1959. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax	 issued a notice in form XI of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules	 1959 on August 29	 1961. That Officer passed the assessment order on November 28	 1961. On October 30	 830 1964	 the Commissioner of Sales Tax initiated proceedings under section 39(2) of the M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959 for revising the assessment made. After notice to the dealer the Commissioner on April 15	 1965 revised the assessment and enchanced the same by a sum of Rs. 993.06 paise. The assessee 's appeal to the Board of Revenue was dismissed on June 20	 1966. Both before the Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue	 the assessee contended that as the assessment related to the period when Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act	 Samv. 2007 was in force	 the revision of that assessment is governed by section 12(1) of that Act and not section 39(2) of the M.P. Act	 1959. It was urged on its behalf that under the Madhya Bharat Act	 the Commissioner could not have revised the order of assessment after the expiry of two years after the assessment was made. Hence the Commissioner was not competent to revise the assessment. The Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue rejected that contention. They came to the conclusion that it was open to the Commissioner to take action under S.39(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act	 1959 in the matter of revising the assessment. The High Court did not agree with that view. It held that in view of section 52 of the 1959 Act	 the governing provision in the matter of revising the assessment was section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act. The only question that we have to decide is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case	 the Commissioner could have exercised his power under section 39(2) of the M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959. Section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act provides "The	 Commissioner may in his discretion at any time suo moto or being moved by the assessing authority	 call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act and if he considers any order is illegal or improper or erroneous in so far as it is pre judicial to the interests of the revenue he may pass orders as he thinks fit : Provided that no order shall be passed prejudicial to a dealer without giving him an opportunity of hearing; Provided further that the Commissioner shall not revise an order which has been made more than two years previously." From the second proviso	 it is clear that the Commissioner is precluded from revising an order which had been made more than two years previously. That proviso did not lay down any rule of limitation. But it took away the power of the Commissioner 831 to revise any assessment after the prescribed period. Thereafter the assessment became final and conclusive as against the Department as well as the assessee	 unless it was liable to be changed under some other provision of the Madhya Bharat Act. Section 39(2) of the M.P. Sales Tax Act of 1959 says "The Commissioner may of his own motion or on information received call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act if he	 considers that any order passed therein by any person appointed under section 3 to assist him is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue	 he may after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard and. after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary	 pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment	 or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment; Provided that no proceedings shall be initiated under this sub section after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sought to be revised. . The M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959 which repealed the Madhya Bharat Act by section 52 therein provided the following repeal and saving provisions. "52(1). The Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act	 1947	 the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act	 Samv. 2007	 the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act	 1947 as extended to Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal region and as in force in those regions immediately before the commencement of this Act and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act	 1954	 as in force in Sironj region	 are hereby repealed : Provided that such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of the said Acts or any right	 title	 obligation or liability already acquired	 accrued	 or incurred thereunder	 and subject thereto	 anything done or any action taken (including any appointment	 notification	 notice	 order	 rule	 form	 regulation	 certificate or licence) in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Acts shall	 in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act	 be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act	 as if this Act were in force on the date on which such thing was done or action was taken; and all arrears of taxes and other 832 amounts due	 at the commencement of this Act may be recovered as if they had accrued under this Act. " The High Court came to the conclusion that in view of the 	decisions of this Court in The Sales Tax Officer Circle 1	 Jabalpur vs Hanuman Prasad(1) and The Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. vs H. B. Munshi	 Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax	 Bombay	 (2) the Commissioner was incompetent to revise the order because of section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act read with section 52(1) of the M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959. Hanuman Prasad 's case (supra) arose out of M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959. Therein in respect of a period governed by the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act	 1947	 the assessee therein filed its return and a notice in form XII was issued to him on March 10	 1959. The assessee 's turnover was assessed by an order dated May 23	 1959. But in the meantime	 M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959 came into force on April 1	 1959. The Commissioner sought to revise the order of assessment on the ground that a portion of assessee 's turnover had escaped assessment. The question arose whether he had to exercise his powers within the time fixed by the Berar Sales Tax Act	 1947 or that fixed under M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959. The specific question that arose for decision in that case was whether the Commissioner 's power to revise had to be exercised in accordance with section 11A(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act	 1947	 as contended by the assessee or under section 19(1) of the M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959 as contended by the Department. That question was examined by this Court from several angles. One of the tests applied was what is the effect of section 52 of the M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959. Dealing with that aspect	 this Court observed at p. 90 of the report "It was under section 52 of the new Act that the repealed Act was repealed	 and that section itself	 under the proviso laid down that such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of the said Act or any right	 title	 obligation or liability already acquired	 accrued or incurred thereunder. There was also the further addition that subject thereto	 anything done or any action taken (including any appointment	 notification	 notice	 order	 rule	 form	 regulation	 certificate or licence) in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Act	 shall	 in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act	 be deemed to have been done or taken in exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act	 as if this Act were in force on the date on view of this proviso it has to be held that when this new which such thing was done or action was taken. In (1) 19 S.T.C. 87. (2) 21 S.T.C. 383	 833 Act came into force on 1st April	 1959	 all rights	 title	 obligation or liability already acquired	 accrued or incurred under the repealed Act by the respondent remained unaffected and intact. The rights and liabilities	 which had been acquired or incurred under the repealed Act	 included the right or liability to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act in respect of turnover of sales effected during the time when that Act was in force." Agreeing with the High Court this Court held in Hanuman Prasad 's(1) case that the Commissioner could not have revised the order of assessment after the period prescribed in the repealed Act. One of the reasons given in support of that conclusion is that "the rights and liabilities	 which had been acquired or incurred under the repealed Act	 included the right or liability to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act	 in respect of turnover of sales effected during the time when that Act was in force". The expression assessment includes re assessment. Swastik oil MillS(2) case is a converse case. Therein the assessee was assessed to sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act	 1946	 for the periods 1st April 1948 to March 31	 1950 and April 1	 1950 to March 31	 1951. On January 7	 1963	 Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 31 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act	 1 1953 proposing to revise the order of the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax in so far as he had allowed deduction in respect of the entire goods despatched by the assessee to its branches 'in other states overlooking the provisions of proviso (b) to rule 1 (ii) under section 6 (3) of the Act of 1946 as amended in 1949. The question was whether the Deputy Commissioner could take advantage of the longer period prescribed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act	 1946 or whether he was required to exercise his powers within the shorter period fixed under the 1953 Act. Bombay High Court as well as this Court came to the conclusion by applying the provisions in section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act (1 of 1904) that the Deputy Commissioner was entitled to exercise his power of revision within the period prescribed under the repealed Act. Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act provides "where this Act or any Bombay Act or Maharashtra Act	 made after the commencement of this Act	 repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made	 then	 unless a different intention appears	 the repeal shall not (c)affect any right	 privilege	 obligation or liability acquired	 accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. (1) 19 S.T.C. 87. (2) 21 S.T.C. 383. 834 (e)affect any investigation	 legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right	 privilege	 obligation	 liability	 penalty	 forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid	 and any such investigation	 legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted	 continued or enforced	 and any such penalty	 forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed" Dealing with the scope of those provisions this is what this Court observed : "Very clearly	 the repeal of the Act of 1953 by the Act of 1959 did not affect the rights and liabilities of the assessee to tax under the Act of 1953 or the Act or 1946 in respect of the turnover which became liable to sales tax under the Act of 1946. The effect of clause (e) of section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act further is that any legal proceeding in respect of levy	 imposition or recovery of that tax is to continue and any fresh investigation	 legal proceeding or remedy could be instituted as if there had been no repeal by the Act of 1959. Consequently	 the repeal of the Act of 1953 did not in any way affect the power of the Deputy Commissioner to institute proceedings for revision suo motu against the appellate order of the Assistant Collector which had been passed in exercise of his powers under the Act of 1946. It is true	 as urged by Mr. Desai in the alternative	 that	 in fact	 the proceedings should have been taken not under section 31 of the Act of 1953	 but under section 22 of the Act of 1946. That is so	 because	 when the Act of 1946 was repealed by the Act of 1953	 similar provisions were made in the Act of 1953 to continue in force the provisions of the Act of 1946 in respect of rights and liabilities which may have accrued or have been incurred under the Act of 1946. Section 48(2) and section 49(1) clearly contained provisions indicating that	 in respect of a liability to tax under the Act of 1946	 the rights and liabilities of the assessee had to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1946 and all legal proceedings or remedies in respect thereof had also to be taken under the same Act. Consequently the Deputy Commissioner in seeking to exercise revisional powers against the order of the Assistant Collector passed under the Act of 1946	 had to proceed under section 22 of the Act of 1946. That	 however	 is not at all material	 because the provisions of section 22 of the Act of 1946 are quite similar to those of section 31 835 of the Act of 1953. The mere incorrect mention of section 31 of the Act of 1953 in the notice is immaterial. The Deputy Commissioner has the jurisdiction and power to revise the order under section 22 of the Act of 1946 and	 consequently the proceedings initiated by him are not without jurisdiction. " Now coming back to section 52 of the M.P. Sales Act of 1959	 the proviso to section 52(1) provides that the repeal of the Madhya Bharat Act shall not affect any right already acquired or accrued thereunder. The question is whether the bar on the power of the Commissioner from exercising the powers under section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act after the prescribed period did create a right in favour of the assessee ? The effect of that provision is that after the time prescribed in that provision	 the Commissioner could not revise the order of assessment to the prejudice of the assessee. Similarly he could not revise the order of assessment to the prejudice of the Revenue. Section 12(1) conferred a right both on the assessee as well as on the Department to see that an order of assessment is not revised to their prejudice after a particular date. We fail to see why section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act should not be considered as conferring on the assessee a right to see that the assessment made against him is not altered to his prejudice after a particular date. That is a valuable right. The effect of section 52 (1) of M.P. Sales Tax Act	 as seen earlier is that all assessments	 which includes reassessments should be in accordance with the repealed Act. The second part of that proviso says that subject to what has been provided in the first part of the proviso	 anything done or any action taken including an order in the exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under the repealed Act	 shall	 in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959 be deemed to have been done in the exercise of powers conferred by or under that Act as if that Act were in force on the date on which such thing was done. There is undoubtedly a conflict between section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act and section 39(2) of the M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959. The former provision prohibits the Commissioner from revising an order which has been made more than two years previously and the latter provision permits him to revise the order till the expiry of three years from the date of the order sought to be revised. Therefore the Revenue cannot call into aid the second part of the proviso. The resulting position is that the governing provision would continue to be section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act. For the reasons mentioned above this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Respondent is ex parte. No costs. L 3 Sup C.I./72 2500 5 10 72 GIPF. 835 of the Act of 1953. The mere incorrect mention of section 31 of the Act of 1953 in the notice is immaterial. The Deputy Commissioner has the I jurisdiction and power to revise the order under section 22 of the Act of 1946 and	 consequently the proceedings initiated by him are not without jurisdiction. " Now coming back to section 52 of the M.P. Sales Act of 1959	 the proviso to section 52(1) provides that the repeal of the Madhya Bharat Act shall not affect any right already acquired or accrued thereunder. The question is whether the bar on the power of the Commissioner from exercising the powers under section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act after the prescribed period did create a right in favour of the assessee ? The effect of that provision is that after the time prescribed in that provision	 the Commissioner could not revise the order of assessment to the prejudice of the assessee. Similarly he could not revise the order of assessment to the prejudice of the Revenue. Section 12(1) conferred a right both on the assessee as well as on the Department to see that an order of assessment is not revised to their prejudice after a particular date. We fail to see why section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act should not	 be considered as conferring on the assessee a right to see that the assessment made against him is	 not altered to his prejudice after a particular date. That is a valuable right. The effect of section 52(1) of M.P. Sales Tax Act	 as seen earlier is that all assessments	 which includes reassessments should be in accordance with the repealed Act. The second part of that proviso says that subject to what has been provided in the first part of the proviso	 anything done or any action taken including an order in the exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under the repealed Act	 shall	 in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959 be deemed to have been done in the exercise of powers conferred by or under that Act as if that Act were in force on the date on which such thing was done. There is undoubtedly a conflict between section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act and section 39(2) of the M.P. Sales Tax Act	 1959. The former provision prohibits the Commissioner from revising an order which has been made more than two years previously and the latter provision permits him to revise the order till the expiry of three years from the date of the order sought to 'be revised. Therefore the Revenue cannot call into aid the second part of the proviso. The resulting position is: that	 the governing provision would continue to be section 12 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Act. For the reasons mentioned above this appeal fails and the same is	dismissed. Respondent is ex parte. No costs. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed .

Section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act	 Samv. 2007 prohibits the Commissioner of Sales tax from revising an order of assessment which had been made more than two years previously	 while section 39(2)	 of the Madhya Pradesh	 Sales Tax Act	 1959	 which came into force on April 1	 1959 and which repealed the Madhya Bharat Act	 permits the Commissioner to revise an order till the expiry of three years from the date of the order sought to be revised. The assessee was a registered dealer under the Madhya Bharat Act. For the period from July 1	 1957 to 31st March	 1958 he submitted returns. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax passed an assessment order on November 28	 1961. On October 30	 1964	 the Commissioner of Sales Tax initiated proceedings tinder section 39(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Act for revising the assessment made. The assessee contended that as the assessment related to the period when the Madhya Bharat Act was in force the revision of the assessment was governed by section 12(1) of that Act	 and therefore	 the Commissioner could not have revised the order of assessment after the expiry of two years after the assessment was made. The High Court	 in reference	 held that	 in view of section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Act	 the governing provision was section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act. Dismissing the appeal to this Court	 HELD:(1) The proviso to section 52(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act	 provides that the repeal of the Madhya Bharat Act shall not affect any right already acquired or accrued there. The effect of section 12 ( 1 ) of the Madhya Bharat Act is that after the time prescribed in that provision the Commissioner could not revise the order of assessment either to the prejudice of the assessee or of the Revenue. 'Me section thus conferred a right both on the assessee as well as on the Department to see that an order of assessment is not revised to their prejudice after two years from the date of the assessment order. Therefore	 the effect of section 52(1) of the Madhya Pradesh At	 is that all assessments which include reassessments	 should be in accordance with the repealed Act. [835 B E] Sales Tax Officer Circle I	 Jabalpur vs Hanuman Prasad 19 S.T.C. 87 and Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. vs H. B. Munshi	 Dy	 Commissioner of Sales Tax	 Bombay	 21 S.T.C. 383	 followed. (2)The second part of the proviso no doubt provides that any action taken under the repealed Act shall	 in so 'far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the latter Act	 be deemed to have been done under the latter Act. But there is undoubtedly a conflict between section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act and section 39(2) of ' the Madhya Pradesh Act. Therefore	 the Revenue cannot call in aid the second part of the proviso. [835 E H] 829