1 t%\^^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WritPetition(T)No. 3i4^3 of 2011 PETITIONER: a ^ ^' ^••y./' „.. ^^^ ~'y RESPONDENTS: / M/s Punjabi Jalpan Grah Bus stand, Bilaspur through its proprietor Shri Krishan Lal Ajniani s/o Shri Mulk Raj Anand aged about 65 years r/o Dayalbatidh, Bilaspur Versus I. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Finance, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Circle-3 , Sales Tax Office, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur ^>. The Commercial Tax Officer, Zone-3, Circle-3, Sales Tax Office, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur. ^"" 'T- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE WARRANT PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS PETtTIONER RESR3NDENTS HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION m No. 2769 OF 2011 M/s. Punjabi Restaurant Versus - ,; . State ofChhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (T) No. 3473 OF 2011 M/s. Punjabi Jalpan Grah Versus - i State of Chhattisgarfri & Ctthers WRIT PETITION m No. 3476 OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS PETtTIONER RESPONDENTS M/s. Punjabi Hindu Hotel Versus ^ State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION m No. 3478 OF 2011 M/s. Classic Restaurant Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226^227 ofthe Constitution of India) Singte Bench; Hon'bteShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Neetabh Dubey, Advocate for the petftioners. Shri Arun Sao. Government Advocate for the State. ashok ORDER (Passed on this 23rd day of September, 2011) 1. Since, W.P.fT) Nos. 2769, 3473, 3476 & 3478 of 2011 involve the same question of facts and law, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. At the very outset, Shri Sao; learnetf 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 affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. In view of foregoing, the assessment orders dated 28.04.2010 [Annexure P-3 in W.P.CD 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 inW.P.(T) No.3478/2011] and thereafter, consequential steps atso are quashed andthe liberty is grant^t to the assessing officer to proceed further, as aforestated submission. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No orderasto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge