IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (T1 No.é%or 2010 PETITIONER: “ M/s Manish Singh Banafar, S/o Shri R.N. Singh Banfer gm?...... m aged about 37 years, r/o Wub GV—6O Gitanjali Vihar Phase II Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. é ’Q\F\9\2b:'@‘ u W — Versus — RESPONDENTS: z 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Finance, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Vanijiyik Kar Bhawan Civil lines, R-aipur, Chhattisgarh. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Commercial Tax Office, Mungeli Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS, DIRECTIONS ETC., IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE nG¢ Q @)3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (T) NO.6283 OF 2010 PETITIONER M/s Manish Singh Banafar Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri‘ J. Present :— Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General forthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 13th day of July, 201 1) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s registration, being No. 22134202096 with the Department of Commercial Taxhhais been cancelled vide order dated 14—9-2004 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even the petitioner did not receive the cancellation order, as thereafter the petitioner continued to file taxes for the subsequent years i.e. 1-4-2006 and thereafter continuously. 3t Shri Dubey further submits that the authorities have also considered the case of the petitioner on the same registration No.22134202096 and the order was also passed, which is evident from order dated 10-6—2010 (Annexure — P/10). Even the authorities have not treated the registration of the petitioner as cancelled pursuant to the alleged order dated 14-9—2004. Shri Dubey also submits that the petitioner having came to know about the cancellation of its registration, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bilaspur. The Divisional Deputy Commissioner without examining all the facts, as aforestated, dismissed the revision on the ground of delay. Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it is true that the petitioner continued to file taxes and assessment order was also passed, as the same is evident from order dated 10—6-2010. In view of the above stated facts, the revisional authority ought to have considered the deiay in preferring the revision by the petitioner. Accordingiy, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the delay in filing the revision before the Divisional Deputy Commissioner is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/4 payable to the State/respondents. The Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bilaspur, is directed to consider the case of the petitioner on its own merits and pass the order in accordance with law. As an upshot, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Li Judge Gowri