IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9385 of 2008 1. VIJAY KRISHNA SON OF SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KADIBIGHA, P.S. RAHUI DISTRICT NALANDA. 2. SMT. KUSHUM LATA WIFE OF SHRI VIJAY KRISHNA SON OF SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KADIBIGHA, P.S. RAHUI DISTRICT NALANDA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCNE AND COMMERCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES ANDMINERALS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA 6. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, NALANDA. 7. THE ASSISTNAT MINING OFFICER, NALANDA. ----------- 5 29/04/2010 Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Nalanda issued a demand notice for payment of sales tax to the tune of Rs. 1,05,691.20 P. This demand was in regard to manufacture and sale of bricks for the year 2003-04. Petitioners state that this demand is not based on actual state of affair and is being demanded on the basis of wrong information given by the Assistant Mining Officer of Nalanda. Petitioners also state that there is a motive behind such action taken against the petitioners and some of the orders passed by the High Court contained in Annexures 9 - 2 - and 10 would indicate the reasons. Averment in the writ application is that the petitioners took provisional license for running a brick kiln from the Mining Department in the year 2003-04 but since they failed to obtain no objection certificate from the Bihar State Pollution Control Board for a long time, the work could not start. By the time the Pollution Control Board issued no objection certificate on 08.07.2004 season for manufacture of bricks had come to an end but despite the said fact within the knowledge of the authorities, the authorities have forwarded the name of the petitioners to the Sales Tax Department and the demand notice was issued thereafter. Petitioners submit that objection has been filed before the Mining Officer stating all these facts. They have documentary evidence also to establish and support the fact about non production or non utilization of the license in the year in question but that objection was never decided or looked into. The respondent authorities are pursuing the matter and they have had to take shelter of this Court in the above stated circumstance. Stand of the respondents is that information was - 3 - forwarded on the basis of the records available with the Assistant Mining Officer and there was a kind of presumption when the license was granted that the petitioners had carried on the business and the activity as there is no contrary information to them on this issue. How bona fide is the claim of the petitioners at this belated stage cannot be certified. In the counter affidavit they have gone to the extent of saying that the petitioners have run the brick kiln and it is now only a ploy to wriggle out the responsibility to pay tax. Demand notice has been issued to the petitioners on the basis of information forwarded by the Mining authorities. If the petitioners have disputed the state of affairs and actual facts and are willing to establish the assertion then the petitioners ought to be given an opportunity to explain the factual state of affair to the Assistant Mining Officer, Nalanda. Merely ignoring them may not suffice. After all it is his action which has generated demand of sales tax against the petitioners. This writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Assistant Mining Officer that taking cognizance of the objection filed by petitioner no. 1, namely, Vijay Krishna, as - 4 - contained in annexure-5 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, he shall communicate his final decision to them and if the finding is otherwise, he may also inform the Sales Tax authorities for follow up action. The Court expects the petitioners to appear before the Assistant Mining Officer, Nalanda at the earliest preferably within a period of two weeks from today and the Assistant Mining Officer shall decide the matter within four weeks thereafter. This writ application stands disposed of. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)