Dismissing the petition the Court held that it can only be construed that, the search operation commences at the second premises of the petitioner on 25.01.2001, continued till 12.06.2001, therefore each time separate panchanamas were drawn and prohibitory orders were issued with the endorsement that, ‘search continues”. However it has been misquoted by the petitioner that, even though the panchanama, dated 25.01.2001 discloses with an endorsement of the Revenue that, the ‘search concluded”, subsequent issuance of prohibitory order and on that strength, subsequent searches made till 12.06.2001 was unauthorised. However the fact remains that, in the second premises the search continued and in view of the specific provisions referred to above in Section 132(1)(iib), which, even though came into effect only from 01.06.2002, the continuous search went up to 12.06.2001 can very well said to be authorised and therefore the Revenue cannot be found fault with by compelling them to calculate the limitation within the meaning of Section 158BE(1)(b) from 01.02.2001 by taking into account the panchanama, dated 25.01.2001 as the last panchanama and by not taking the 12.06.2001 panchanama as the last panchanama.  Therefore independently, on the basis of Section 132(1)(iib), the Revenue’s continuous search operation taken place on various dates from 25.01.2001 till 12.06.2001 can very well be construed as an authorised search operation, therefore the panchanama issued on 12.06.2001 shall be deemed to be the last authorisation within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 158BE. Accordingly  the  Block Assessment Order, dated 30.06.2003 is within the limitation of two years under Section 158BE(1)(b) commencing from 01.07.2001 since the end of the month in which the last of authorisation for search under Section 132 was to be reckoned only as 30.06.2001. Accordingly the order is not barred by limitation . Writ petition was dismissed.