HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 1. There are some observations in the ON Trust case that support the submissions of the petitioners. However this case is distinguishable on facts. The facts of this case are as follows: (i) The Assam High Court had declared the Assam Taxation (On Goods Carried by Road or on Inland Waterways) Act, 1954 (the old Assam Act), to be ultravires the Constitution. The legislature enacted a new law titled Assam Taxation (On Goods Carried by Road or on Inland Waterways) Act, 1961 (the new Assam Act). The validity of the new Assam Act was also challenged. The Assam High Court stayed further proceeding under the new Assam Act on 28.7.1968 and subsequently the new Assam Act was also held to be ultravires the Constitution. The State of Assam went up in appeal and the Supreme Court granted stay order on 18.10.1963. This appeal was subsequently allowed by the Supreme Court on 1.4.1968 and the new Assam Act was held to be intravires. (ii) During pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, notices were issued in 1965 to the assessees for assessment of the taxes under section 7(2) of the new Assam Act. The notice under section 7(2) of the new Assam Act could be issued only within two years. The notices were beyond period of limitation of two years mentioned under the new Assam Act. These notices were challenged on the ground that they were beyond limitation. The Assam High Court accepted this ground and quashed the notices. 2. The State of Assam went up in appeal to the Supreme Court and submitted that: (a) The period from 28.7.1961 to 28.10.1963 ought to be excluded while calculating limitation. (b) Nothing could be done as initially the Assam High Court had granted interim order staying the proceeding on 28.7.1961 and then the new Assam Act was declared ultravires. (c) It is only after the Supreme Court granted the stay orders on 28.6.1963 that the relevant authorities in State of Assam could issue notice to the assessees. (d) In case this period (for which no action could be taken) is excluded, the notice would be within limitation of two years. 3. In the background of the aforesaid facts the Supreme Court by majority of 3:2 held the State was guilty of inactivity (paragraphs 17, 63-65 of the report) and rejected the contention of State of Assam. The appeal was dismissed. Crushing Season Date of SMP notification of GOI Base SMP and its Range in Rupees Date and order of GO UP Price of SAPfor the most common variety in Rupees 1991-92 04/01/92 2626/--32.12 14/11/91(For All) 45 1992-93 01/03/92 31.0031/--38.29 26/12/92 (For All) 46 1993-94 13/10/93 34.5034.5- - 43.84 1/10/93 (For All) 58 1994-95 3-5/1/95 39.1039.10 - 47.20 18/11/94 (For All) 66 1995-96 15/5/96 42.5045.74 - 53.30 6/11/95 (For All) 70 4. The facts of the ON Trust case are different from the facts of the present case. (i) The ON Trust case was a case under a taxing statute with statutory limitation for taking action.