R.N. Misra, J.
1. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business at Gunupur in the district of Koraput and is registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereafter referred as the 'Central Act') and has been assigned Registration Number K. O. C. II-18. Along with other commodities, it deals in oil-seeds. Assessments under the Central Act for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 were completed on 11th September, 1972, and 17th August, 1973, respectively. The assessing officer while completing these assessments had relied upon a notification issued by the State Government under Section 8(6) of the Central Act and had omitted to assess inter-State transactions in oil-seeds. After the decision of this court in the case of Orissa Hides Trading Co. v. Sales Tax Officer  36 S.T.C. 232, notices under Rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules have been issued for reopening the assessments. This writ application is directed against these notices and the petitioner claims for a writ of certiorari to quash them.
2. The validity of the notification has been examined at length in K. Narayana Kumandan Sons & Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Koraput II Circle  36 S.T.C. 374 (O.J.C. No. 1168 of 1974) disposed of today and we have negatived the contentions advanced in support of the stand that the notification is valid. We adopt the reasonings given in the said decision and hold that the notification is not a valid one as it is contrary to the provisions of Section 15(b) of the Central Act.
3. In the said decision, we did not examine the applicability of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act of 1972 validating the assessments, reassessments, levy or collection of sales tax as the assessments were made after the validating provision came into force. The amending Act of 1972 was brought into force with effect from 1st April, 1973. Assessment for the year 1971-72 was made on 11th September, 1972, i. e., prior to the coming into force of the amending Act. It has, therefore, to be examined now as to whether the assessment for the said year completed on the basis of the notification must be taken to have been validated.
4. Section 15(1) of the amending Act provides :
Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree, or order of any court or other authority to the contrary, any assessment, reassessment, levy or collection of any tax made or purporting to have been made, any action or thing taken or done in relation to such assessment, reassessment, levy or collection under the provisions of the principal Act before the commencement of this section shall be deemed to be as valid and effective as if such assessment, reassessment, levy or collection or action or thing had been made, taken or done under the principal Act as amended by Clause (a) of Section 11 and Clause (a) of Section 12 of this Act and, accordingly-
(a) all acts, proceedings or things done or action taken by the State Government or by any other officer of the State Government or by any other authority in connection with the assessment, reassessment, levy or collection of such tax shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be and to have always been done or taken in accordance with law ;
In view of the clear provision of Clause (a) quoted above, we are of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the notification ran counter to Section 15(b) of the Central Act, the said assessment must be taken to be valid. As merely on the infirmity of the notification steps for reopening the assessment for the year 1971-72 are intended to be taken, the validating provision would stand as a bar to such action.
5. We would accordingly allow the writ application in part and hold that the notice issued for reopening the assessment for the year 1971-72 under purported exercise of powers under Rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules is not tenable in law. The said notice confined to that year is quashed. We make no order as to costs.
B.K. Ray, J.
6. I agree.