In this case, before the right of the assessing authority was barred, the period of limitation prescribed by law was enlarged, and it was the amended law that determined the liability of the petitioner. As we pointed out earlier, before the two year period of limitation expired on 31st March, 1955, the rule was amended on 11th June, 1953, providing a three year period of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of Ramaswami, J., in East Asiatic Co. v. State, a decision rendered on 5th May, 1954, that is, before our decision in Muhamad Hussain Nachiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The attention of the learned Judge does not seem to have been drawn to the earlier decision in Ramanathan Chettiar's case, where as we pointed out, the learned Chief Justice referred to the principle of law as a well settled one. With all respect to Ramaswami, J., we are unable to accept as correct the basis of his conclusion on this point: “But the right which had accrued to the assessee, namely, that the escaped assessment of tax cannot be reopened beyond the period of one year cannot be described as a matter relating to procedure only and it was a matter which was more than one relating to procedure, that is to say, it touched a right in existence”. In Ramanathan Chettiar's case, the learned Chief Justice pointed out that it was well settled that the law of limitation was procedural law. It should, however be noted that in East Asiatic Co. v. State, the relevant assessment years were 1945-46 and 1946-47, the notices issued to him under rule 17 were dated 24th February, 1950, and were received by the assessee on 4th March, 1950; the order of revision was dated 31st March, 1950.
