Limitation objection must be decided by a reasoned order; inadequate adjudication led to remand for fresh consideration.

A preliminary objection that proceedings were time-barred had to be decided judicially by the Sales Tax Officer, with a reasoned order recording the decision. The officer's order did not show any such adjudication and merely noted that the point had been explained to the dealer. As no proper determination of limitation had been made, the High Court did not examine the merits of the limitation dispute and directed the authority to reconsider the objection afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Sales Tax Officer had validly decided the assessee's preliminary objection that the proceedings were barred by limitation and, if not, whether the matter should be remanded for a proper adjudication.

Analysis: The order passed by the Sales Tax Officer did not record a judicial determination of the limitation objection and merely stated that the point had been explained to the dealer. A preliminary objection of this kind had to be decided judicially, with a proper order containing the decision and reasons. Since no such adjudication existed, the Court did not enter into the merits of the limitation controversy and directed the authority to consider the objection afresh in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was not properly decided by the Sales Tax Officer, and the matter was remanded for fresh judicial consideration of that objection.

---