IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14314 of 2008 SIEMENS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. K.N. Jain, Senior Advocate Dr. R. Usha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG III Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate --------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 22nd September, 2008. Confronted with the difficulty of non-adherence to the provisions contained in section 25(3)(a) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, ‘VAT Act’) inasmuch as after the explanation was submitted by the assessee – petitioner pursuant to notice under section 25(2)(b) of the VAT Act, no opportunity to adduce necessary evidence was given to them, the Additional Advocate General – III submits that the matter may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for consideration after following the provisions contained in section 25(3)(a) of the VAT Act. 2. The senior counsel for the petitioner is not averse to this course and he is satisfied with the submission of Additional Advocate General - III. 3. We, consequently, dispose of the writ petition by the 2 following order:- (i) The orders dated 26th February, 2008 and 9th June, 2008 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Assessing Officer, respondent no. 2 on 29th September, 2008. (iii) The Assessing Officer may ask the petitioner to adduce necessary evidence as required under section 25(3)(a) of the VAT Act on that date or any other date that may be fixed by him. (iv) We observe that the assessee-petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournment and expect the assessing officer to hear and decide the matter finally at an early date. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/