Sarkaria, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court answering against the Department the following question referred to it under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. 1948:

"Whether under the circumstances of the case starting point of limitation for the Department to prefer a revision against the original assessment order would start from the date of assessment order or would start according to the discretion of the assessing officer or the Department from the time the assessing officer wishes to apprise the Department about the passing of the assessment as in this case."

2. The respondent-assessee is a dealer carrying on business at Beriyaganj Shahjahannur. On 6-7-1958. the Sales Tax Officer passed an order assessing him for the year 1957-58. Subsequently, the Sales Tax Officer felt that by oversight a mistake had crept in the order of assessment made by him. Consequently, in January 1960, he wrote a letter to P. A. to the Commissioner, Sales Tax seeking guidance as to how he should proceed in the matter to rectify the omission. The Commissioner treated that intimation received on 27-1-1960 as service on him. Thereafter, on 11-4-1950, the Commissioner filed a revision application under Section 10 of the Act before the Judge (Revisions).

3. When this revision came up for arguments before the revisional authority, the assesses urged that the revision was time-barred inasmuch as it had been filed more than 18 months after the date of the assessment order. The assessees contention was that the starting point for limitation was the date of the assessment order. As against this, the Department maintained that the terminus a quo for limitation was 27-1-1960, on which date the Personal Assistant to the Commissioner had, received the intimation of the assessment order, and consequently, the revision having been filed within one year of that date, wag fully within time. The Judge (Revisions) accented the contention of the assessee and dismissed the revision as barred by limitation.

4. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Judge (Revisions) referred the question under Section 11 of the Act to the High Court for opinion. The reference, in the first instance, was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Jagdish Sahai and M. H. Beg JJ. Jagdish Sahai J. was of the view that the starting point of limitation in the case of a revision application filed by the Commissioner would be the date on which the assessment order was passed by the Sales-tax Officer because the law creates a presumption that the Commissioner would be deemed to have been served on that date.

5. Beg J. struck the discordant note :

"My answer to the first part of the question, as framed, is in the negative. I am of opinion that the period of limitation for the Commissioner to prefer a revision application under Section 10 (3) (i) of the Act will not start from the date of the assessment order. I would answer the second part of the question also in the negative by saying that the period of limitation would not commence to run from any date lying within the discretion or depending upon the wishes of the assessing officer. It would commence, in accordance with Section 10 (3-B) from the actual date on which the Commissioner has been duly apprised of the contents of the assessment order in a mode which may be deemed to be "service" upon him. The mere passing of an assessment order cannot, in my opinion be possibly deemed to be "service" automatically upon the Commissioner. In the case before us the Commissioner applied within the prescribed period after the communication of the contents of the assessment older to him which was sufficient "service." "

6. On account of this difference of opinion the case was referred to Verma J. who agreed with Jagdish Sahai J. and answered the question against the Department. Hence this appeal.

7. Before 1954, no limitation for filing an application for revision was provided in the Act or in the rules framed thereunder. Such a provision was first made by the U. P. Act VIII of 1954. This amending Act added sub-sections (3-A) and (3-B) in Section 10 of the principal Act of 1948. Section 10 after this amendment, reads as follows :

10. Power of Revision. (1) The State Government shall appoint as Revising Authority a person qualified under clause (2) of Article 217 of the Constitution for appointment as Judge of a High Court.

(2) The appellate authority adjoined under Section 9 shall be under the superintendence and control of the Revising Authority.

(3) (i) The Revising Authority (or an Additional Revising Authority) may, for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order made by any appellate or assessing authority under this Act, in its discretion call for and examine, either on its own motion or on the application of the Commissioner of Sales Tax or the persons aggrieved, the record of such order as it thinks fit :

Provided that no such application shall be entertained in any case where an appeal lay against the order, but was not preferred :

(Provided further that an application for stay of realisation of any amount of tax, fee or penalty shall not be entertained by the Revising Authority or by any Additional Revising Authority, unless an appeal or revision from the order of the assessing authority or the appellate authority, as the case may is pending before proper authority.

Provided also that whenever realisation of any amount of tax, fee or penalty is staved by the Revising Authority or by any Additional Revising Authority, the applicant shall be required to furnish security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority concerned within such period as may be specified by it).

(ii) The State Government may appoint (such number of Additional Revising Authorities, as it may deem necessary, out of persons qualified for appointment as Revising Authority). The Additional Revising Authority shall exercise such powers of the Revising Authority as may be prescribed or assigned to him by the State Government either generally in any area or in respect of any class of cases.

(3-A) A copy of the order passed under sub-section (3) shall be served upon the applicant.

(3-B) The application under sub-section (3) shall be made within one year from the date of service of the order complained of but the Revising Authority may on proof of sufficient cause entertain an application within a further period of six months.

(4) The Revising Authority shall not pass any order under sub-section (3) adversely affecting any person unless an opportunity has been given to such person to be heard.

(5) If the amount of tax assessed, fee levied or penalty imposed is reduced by the Revising Authority under sub-section (3) it shall order the excess amount of tax (fee or penalty) if already realised to be refunded."

8. Answer to the question referred hinges upon a correct interpretation of sub-section (3-B).

9. From the imprecise and unhappy language of this provision, four different constructions can possibly be suggested, and indeed have been suggested at one stage or the other. First, that sub-section (3-B) does not at all take in a revision application by the Commissioner. Second, even if it does so. it does not provide any starting point of limitation in the case of a revision filed by the Commissioner. Third, that the starting point of limitation for a revision application whether filed by the dealer or the Commissioner, is the date on which the order of assessment is served on the dealer. Fourth, the starting point of limitation is the date of service of the order on the revision applicant, be he the Commissioner or the dealer.

10. The first is manifestly untenable. Sub-section (3-B) starts with an express reference to "the application under sub-section (3)." Sub-section (3) in terms, provides that the revision-application may be made either by the dealer or by the Commissioner. The Commissioners right under sub-section (3) to move the Revising Authority by an application is distinct and independent of the one conferred on the dealer, although the latter has under Sec. 9 an additional right of appeal against the assessment order, which must be exhausted before he can invoke the revisional jurisdiction under this section. Thus in the context, sub-section (3-B) comprehends both categories of revision-applicants, namely the Commissioner as well as the dealer.

11. Mr. Manchanda, the learned Counsel for the appellant canvasses in the first place for the second construction, and, in the alternative for the fourth, with the elucidation that the mere making of an order of assessment by the Sales-tax Officer does not - contrary to the reasoning of the High Court - amount to automatic service of that order on the Commissioner.

12. Mr. Hardayal Hardy, the learned counsel for the caveators, does not support the interpretation adopted by the High Court. He maintains that the third construction is the correct one. The starting point of limitation for a revision application according to the Counsel, even if it be filed by the Commissioner, is the date of service of the order on the assesses. Mr. Hardy does not dispute the correctness of the proposition propounded by Mr. Manchanda that the very act of passing an assessment order by the Sales-tax Officer does not amount to its service upon the Commissioner or his representative. Learned Counsel, however, points out that there is no provision in respect of service of an order of assessment made against a dealer by the Sale-tax Officer, on the Commissioner, while elaborate provisions for service of such an order on the dealer exist in the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Viewed against this background; proceeds the argument, limitation would start running from the date of seduce of the order of assessment on the dealer even against the Commissioner, irrespective of whether the latter was or was not aware of the order. This is so, contends the counsel, because once limitation begins to run, then, on the principle of Section 9. Limitation Act, unawareness of the order on the part of the Commissioner will not stop it.

13. Once it is conceded that sub-section (3 -B) encompasses all revision-applications, whether made by the assessee or by the Commissioner, then it necessarily follows that the period and the starting point of limitation provided therein, govern without exception all such applications. Contention in favour of the second construction thus suffers from an inherent infirmity and self-contradiction. It must, therefore, be rejected.

l4. We are now left to choose between the third and the fourth constructions.

15. The only starting point of limitation mentioned in Section 10 (3-B) is "the date of service of the order complained of." Now, what is meant by service And on whom is it contemplated The sub-section is either obscure or silent on these points. The learned Judges of the High Court have tried to clear this obscurity by referring to the scheme of the Act and the Rules. They have also referred to somewhat similar provisions of the Income-tax Act, and imported them by analogy into the sub-section in question so as to reach the conclusion that in the case of a revision application by the Commissioner, the starting point of limitation is the date on which the assessment order is made by the Sales-tax Officer. If we may say so with respect, in accepting that construction, the High Court has as it were, by judicial legislation introduced in sub-section (3-B) a different starting point of limitation in case of a revision filed by the Commissioner.

16. In our opinion it is not proper to interpret Section 10 (3-B) of the Act on the analogy of Sections 263 (2) and 264 (2) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 which are not in pari materia with the sub-section in question.

17. It is safe and sufficient for our purpose to adhere to the scheme and language of the Act and the Rules. Service of an order of assessment in the context of the scheme of the Act and the Rules means something subsequent and distinct from the mere making of the order of assessment. It implies formal communication of the order after it has been passed on termination of the proceedings, so that the party to whom it is communicated, may, if aggrieved seek redress in a higher forum in the manner prescribed by law. That this should be the sense of the term service in sub-section (3-B) will be clear from a reference to Rule 70 (1) which provides :

"70 (1). A copy of every order of the Section 10 shall be delivered or sent by post to the person affected by the order, and to the Commissioner."

18. It is true that the Rule does not, in terms apply to an original assessment order passed by the Sales-tax Officer, but that does not detract from its value as illustrative of the proposition that the mere passing of an order (in appeal or revision) does not operate as service or communications of its contents to the Commissioner. It is to be noted that an order passed under Section 9 (3) by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) in appeal, is revisable on an application filed by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) and limitation for such an application also is governed by sub-section (3-B) of Section 10. The starting point of limitation for a revision-application whether filed against an appellate order or an original order of assessment, being the same viz, service of the order sought to be revised, the connotation of the term service must also remain constant.

19. True that the Act and the Rules do not make any provision for service of an assessment order passed by the Sales-tax Officer against a dealer on the Commissioner. At the same time there is nothing in these statutory provisions, which inhibits the service of such an order on the Commissioner. Rather the necessity of serving such an order of assessment on the Commissioner to enable him, if necessary to file a revision-application, is implicit in the language of Section 10 (3-B). Indeed, regular and prompt communication of such orders to the Commissioner is a must for a proper and fair working of the provision.

20. We are not persuaded to accept Mr. Hardys contention that the phrase "the date of service of the order complained of" does not include service on the Commissioner. This phrase has to be read as a whole consistently with the scheme of the Act and the Rules (particularly Rule 70 (1)) with due emphasis on the key words "complained of". Thus construed the phrase can legitimately be expanded as "the date of service on the revision-applicant, of the order complained of." This is the only interpretation which, in our opinion comports best with the scheme and language of the statute and the maintenance of parity between the assesses and the Department in the matter of limitation which was intended to be secured by the amendment of 1954.

Appear to be repugnant to the scheme and object of the statute: they envisage a varying and uneven construction of the scope, meaning and effect of the word "service" applying it differently to different applicants though similarly situated. The very nature of the right to file a revision under Section 10 imports, as a necessary condition, service or communication of the contents of the order complained of. In a sense, this remedial right cannot be said to accrue until the party concerned on being served, becomes aware of the cause of grievance and consequent necessity of redress. The interpretation expounded by Mr. Hardy seems to be lop-sided and anomalous. It unfairly reserves the "service! exclusively for the dealer keeping the Commissioner out in complete darkness without due chance of knowing whether an order of assessment passed by the Sales-tax Officer is injurious to public revenue or not. The construction put by the High Court is too fictional and innovative. Nor does it keep the Commissioner and the assessee in pari passu. Drawing more by analogy from Sections 263 and 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and less from the statute under consideration it is, at best, a conception of law as it ought to be rather than of what itactually is.

22. We are conscious that the law contained in S. 10 (3-B) as exposed by us, is not perfect, It is susceptible to abuse. Indeed, it was such an apprehension that seems to have persuaded the learned Judges of the High Court too far away from the language of the statute, into the realm of speculation and induced them, as it were, to substitute - so far as the Commissioner was concerned - "the, date of the order" for "the date of service of the order" provided by the Legislature. Said Varma J :

"If a different view were to be taken then it would be open to the Sales-tax Officer not to serve a copy of the assessment order on the Commissioner for ten or twenty years, It is preposterous to imagine that the period of limitation would remain in abeyance until the Sales-tax Officer chooses to serve formally a copy of the assessment order on the Commissioner."

23. These are strong words and the apprehension expressed therein is not altogether baseless. But the apprehension does not stem from any inherent defect in the legislatures choice of "service" as the terminus a quo for limitation. It arises out of the omission to make any provision in the Act and the Rules requiring the Sales tax Officer to send forthwith a copy of every assessment order to the Commissioner also. Supplying of that omission it a matter for the Legislature and not for the Court.

24. Be that as it may the Court cannot scan the wisdom of the legislature in prescribing the date of service as the starting point of limitation. Nor can the Court refuse to give effect to it or substitute for it any other terminus which it thinks to be more reasonable merely because there is an apprehension of its abuse.

25. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the date of service of the order complained of on the revision-applicant is the starting point of limitation within the contemplation of Section 10 (3-B) of the Act. Accordingly we allow the appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court and answer the question referred in favour of the Revenue. Since the revision-application in the instant case was filed by the Commissioner within one year of the communication of the assessment order to him, it was within time. In the circumstances of the ease, there will be no order as to costs.

26. We part with this judgement with a note of regret but in the hone that something good may come out of it.

27. A statute is supposed to be an authentic repository of the legislative will and the function of a court is to interpret it "according to the intent of them that made it". From that function the court is not to resile. It has to abide by the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat, lest the intention of the legislature may go in vain or be left to evaporate into thin air, Where that intent is clearly expressed in the language of the Act there is little difficulty in giving effect to it. But where such intent is covert and couched in language which is imperfect imprecise and deficient, or is ambiguous or enigmatic and external aids to interpretation are few, scanty and indeterminate the court may despite application of all its experience ingenuity and ratiocination kind itself in a position no better than that of a person solving, a cross-word nuzzle with a few given hints and hunches. In such a situation a mere reference to the High Court of a question for opinion may not afford an adequate solution. Only legislative amendment may furnish an efficacious and speedy remedy. The present is a typical illustration of such a case. The difficulty in the interpretation of the unhappy language of this statute was felt in 1960 and even earlier. We are now in 1975. For fifteen long years, the Department has been fighting this tardy expensive and sterile litigation. Even after this lone-drawn struggle culminating in judicial finale, a doubt might persist as to whether the court has succeeded in divining the true legislative intent. It is therefore desirable that the legislature should amend the statute and make its intent clear. In any event to make the law workable, it should make a statutory provision requiring the Sales-tax Officer to send forthwith a copy of every assessment order made by him to the Commissioner for information.

28. Appeal allowed.