IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15965 of 2009 1. M/S VAISHALI SEEDS CORPORATION, RAJENDRA CHOWK, HAJIPUR-844101 THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAM DAYAL SINGH S/O YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH R/O MOH- SHAHI COLONY, P.S. TOWN THANA, HAJIPUR, DISTT. VAISHALI ..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) AUDIT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) MUZAFFARPUR DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR …………respondents ----------- 2 23-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is clear from annexures 3 and 4 that petitioner’s case came to be selected for the purpose of audit u/s 26 (3) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005. As per Rule 22 of the Rules framed under that Act the audit report was scrutinized by the Joint Commissioner Incharge of the Audit and then a final report was prepared and a copy was served upon the petitioner, the dealer. After considering his reply the Joint Commissioner came to a prima facie satisfaction that the dealer/petitioner had not disclosed his correct tax liability and self assessment made by the dealer suffered from suppression of some part of his business transaction. According to the petitioner at best the claim of higher amount made by the petitioner could have been rejected but it was not a case for re-assessment u/s 31 of the Act. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Assessing Officer had no scope to apply his own mind in view of 2 order by the Joint Commissioner, Audit and, therefore, the initiation of the re-assessment itself was bad and no notice should have been issued upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that annexure-4 is the final order passed by the Assessing Officer in the re-assessment proceeding and at this stage it will not be proper for this court to consider the initiation of the assessment proceeding. It was also submitted that the final order of re-assessment contained in annexure-4 can be assailed by the petitioner either through statutory appeal or revision proceeding. In view of availability of statutory remedy to the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty that, if so advised, the petitioner may take recourse of suitable statutory remedy available to him under the Act. We find no substance in the apprehension of the petitioner that because the appellate authority is also an officer of the rank of Joint Commissioner he will not be able to hear and decide the appeal fairly and independently because the Joint Commissioner rank officer had finalized the audit report. We are of the view that the appellate authority being a public officer can always examine all the issue raised by the petitioner in accordance with law. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)