IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9104 of 2011 ====================================================== M/S Linde Engineering India Private Limited through Shri Yoganand n Iyengar, aged about 58 years, son of late N.N.Iyengar resident of 205, 2ns floor, BSK residency, 8th Main Girinagar, Bangalore 560085, P.O. Balashankari 3rd stage and P.S. Girinagar, Dist.-Banglore. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Begusarai Circle, Begusarai. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. L.N.Rastogi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sharat Kumar Sharan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 19.5.2011. This is the third writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution preferred by the petitioner in course of the proceeding relating to the demand of Rs. 1,82,85,519/- made under Section 39(5) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the first two quarters of the financial year 2009-10. Against the order of recovery, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 5100 of 2010 that was disposed of on 25th March 2010. The order of attachment of bank Patna High Court CWJC No.9104 of 2011 (2) dt.19-05-2011 2 account was stayed on condition that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.18 lakhs and preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to hear and decide the appeal within six months. Pursuant to the said direction the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna by its order dated 29th October 2010 made on appeal No.DR-78/2010 allowed the appeal, remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for deciding the matter afresh in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal. Since the order of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer has decided the matter on 24th December 2010 against the petitioner. Once again, the petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1656 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. That petition was dismissed by us on 18th April 2011 on the ground that the petitioner had alternative statutory remedy of appeal/revision. It appears that against the order of assessment dated 24th December 2010 the petitioner has filed revision on 25th April 2011 before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer issued impugned notice of demand on 26th April 2011. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel Mr. L.N. Rastogi has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that though the petitioner has filed revision application and also an Patna High Court CWJC No.9104 of 2011 (2) dt.19-05-2011 3 application for stay before the revisional authority, without considering the revision pending before the revisional authority or without deciding the stay application the petitioner has been told to pay the outstanding dues. In support of his submission Mr. Rastogi has relied upon the order of this Court dated 23rd March 2005 made on C.W.J.C. No. 3745 of 2005 and the order dated 26th March 2007 made on C.W.J.C. No. 3358 of 2007. We do appreciate that the power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary jurisdiction. There cannot be a binding precedent that every writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained by the High Court. We deprecate the practice of the assessee of approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution at every stage of a proceeding without allowing the proceeding to be taken to its logical end. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner has filed the revision application on 25th April 2011. Within a week therefrom he has approached this Court with a complaint that his revision application or stay application has not been decided. We do not intend to encourage the practice of approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution just with a view to obtaining a stay in the proceeding pending before the lower authority or to get precedence in the matter of hearing over the other matters which may already be pending for a longer time. Patna High Court CWJC No.9104 of 2011 (2) dt.19-05-2011 4 The petitioner has preferred the revision application. It is for the petitioner to appear before the revisional authority to press the stay application or to press for early hearing. We see no justification for interfering with the proceeding pending before the lower authority merely because a party can afford to approach the High Court at every stage. The Petition is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)