Limitation under sales tax reassessment runs from the next day after communication, and reopening follows the special limitation rule.

For limitation under section 10-B(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the period of two years from communication of the appellate order is computed by excluding the date of communication and counting from the next day, so a fresh assessment made on the corresponding last day is within time. A reassessment made pursuant to appellate remand remains a valid operative order unless set aside in accordance with law; its later reopening does not erase its prior legal existence for limitation purposes. Once the matter is reopened under section 10-C, the further assessment is governed by the specific reopening limitation in section 10-B(1)(iv), running from the dealer's reopening application.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for the purpose of section 10-B(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the period of two years is to be computed by excluding the date on which the appellate order is communicated to the assessing authority and including the date on which the fresh assessment order is made. (ii) Whether a fresh assessment order made in compliance with an appellate remand, and later set aside in proceedings under section 10-C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, ceases to be operative for limitation purposes, and whether the subsequent reassessment is governed by section 10-B(1)(iv).

Issue (i): Whether, for the purpose of section 10-B(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the period of two years is to be computed by excluding the date on which the appellate order is communicated to the assessing authority and including the date on which the fresh assessment order is made.

Analysis: The limitation language in section 10-B(2) required completion of assessment within two years of communication of the appellate order. The computation of limitation follows the settled principle that the first day is excluded and the last day is included, as reflected in the General Clauses legislation. The phrase "within two years of communication" was treated as meaning two years after communication, so the period commenced from the next day after service of the appellate order.

Conclusion: The date of communication had to be excluded, and the order made on the corresponding last day was within limitation; the objection that it was time-barred was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether a fresh assessment order made in compliance with an appellate remand, and later set aside in proceedings under section 10-C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, ceases to be operative for limitation purposes, and whether the subsequent reassessment is governed by section 10-B(1)(iv).

Analysis: A fresh order passed within the prescribed time in compliance with the appellate direction was an operative order and could be challenged only through the remedies available under the Act. Setting it aside in reopening proceedings did not erase its legal existence for the earlier stage. Once the best-judgment order was reopened under section 10-C, the further assessment fell within section 10-B(1)(iv), which prescribes the limitation period from the dealer's reopening application.

Conclusion: The original order remained legally effective when made, and the subsequent reassessment was also within limitation under section 10-B(1)(iv).

Final Conclusion: The limitation objection failed, the tax board's orders were quashed, and the appeals were directed to be decided on merits treating the assessment as time-compliant.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation provisions framed as completion "within" a period from communication or receipt, the day of communication is excluded and the period runs from the next day; an assessment order validly made within that period remains operative unless set aside in accordance with law, and reopening thereafter is governed by the specific reopening limitation provision.

---