IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15610 of 2009 M/S BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., SANCHAR SADAN BUDH MARG, PATNA, THROUGH SRI SHARAD KR. SINHA, S/O LATE PROMOD BAN BIHARI SINGH, A.G.M. (M.M.), OFFICE OF CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA. --PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATNA WEST CIRCLE, PATNA. --RESPONDENTS ______ For the Petitioner : M/s. L.N. Rastogi, Alok Kr. Shahi & Archana Sinha For the Respondents : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, JC to AAG 3 2 19.11.2009 Heard the parties. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the appellant, is a Central Government Undertaking and it has assailed order dated 28th September, 2002 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Patna West Circle, Patna, respondent no.3, mainly on the ground that the said order was passed without notice and in violation of principle of natural justice. The order sheet annexed as Annexure-2 shows 2 that 23rd September, 2002 was the date fixed for considering application of the petitioner for registration and on that date itself it was recorded that notice has been served. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the records of the petitioner no notice was served and,, therefore, petitioner could not appear either on 23rd September, 2002 or on the next date that is on 28th September, 2002 when application for registration was rejected on the ground that required informations have not been furnished in the application such as name of applicant’s father has not been mentioned. In the alternative it has also been submitted that if, according to the respondents, notice was served on 23rd September, 2002, on that date itself the ex-parte hearing was completed without adjourning the matter for hearing on any date and only order was passed on 28th September, 2002. From Annexure-1 it has been shown that the application filed by the petitioner was for registration under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 whereas in the impugned order dated 28th September, 2002 the application has been treated to be for registration under Section 14 of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 read with Rule 3 of 3 Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. Petitioner had approached Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, for invoking revisional Jurisdiction under Section 46 (4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1981 but that application has been rejected by order dated 16th October, 2006 (Annexure-5) on the ground that due to amendment in the Act the Commissioner did not enjoy revisional powers any more. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, we are inclined to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without notice. It is also found that the impugned order has been passed without proper application of mind because a Company or a Corporation cannot furnish its father’s name. Be that as it may, in the facts of the case, the impugned order dated 28th September, 2002 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. To avail such an opportunity of hearing the petitioner must appear, with a copy 4 of this order, before respondent no.3 on any working day within four weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) AAhmad