^ fm^ C^\f^__ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR Writ Petition (T) No. °>W6 of 2011 PETITIONER: ^ ^ afC^^ ..•••".''^.u-'^\.?"' ^-•y'o^^ ^"^^ ...-•:" .'•' ^ ^L^ RESPONDENTS: ^ M/s Punjabi Hindu Hotel, Railway Market Bilaspur through its proprietor Smt. Raj Rani Ajmani w/o Shri Kishan Lal Ajmani aged about 58 years r/o Dayalbandh, Bilaspur Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Finance, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Circle-3 , Sales Tax Office, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur 3, The Commercial Tax Officer, Zone-3, Circle-3, Sales Tax Office, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY QTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE WARRANT ^ ashoK PETtTIONER RiSPQNDENTS .iPETITIONER HIGH COURTOFCHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION m No. 2769 OF 2011 M/s. Punjabi Restaurant ^ Versus- r » State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (T) No. 3473 OF 2011 M/s. Punjabi Jalpan Grah ; Versus - i RESPQNDENTS PETITIQNER RESR3NDENTS PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Othere WRIT PETITION m No. 3476 OF 2011 M/s. Punjabi htindu Hotel Versus ^ Stateof ©hhattisgarh& Others WRIT PETITION m No. 3478 OR2011 M/s. Classic Restaurant Versus State of Chbattisgaiti & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate for the petttloners. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 23td day of September, 2011) Since, W.P.fT) Nos. 2769, 3473, 3476 & 3478 of 201 1 involve the same question offacts and law, they are being considered and decided by this common order. At the ver/ outset, Shh Sao, learned^Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that there is some deficiency in the assessment order, thus, the assessing officer may be permitted to reconsider and decide the same, in accordance with law, after affbrding proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of foregoing, the assessment orders dated 28.04.2010 [Annexure P-3 in W.P.CO No.2769/2011, Annexure P-3 inW.P.(T) No.3473/2011, Annexure P-1 in W.P.(T) No.3476/2011 & Annexure P-3 in W.P.(T) No.3478/2011] and thereafter, consequential steps also are quashed and the tiberty is granted to the assessing officer to proceed further, as aforestated submission. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge