WP(C) 2813/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue. 2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties this petition is disposed of at the motion stage. 3. The run up of facts to the instant petition in brief needs to be noted. A demand for Rs. 6,77,11,176/- having been raised against the petitioner under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short hereafter referred to as t he Act), a proceeding being Bakijai Case No. 164/08-09/VAT under section 7 of th e Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (for short hereafter referred to as t he Recovery Act) was drawn up. On the receiving the notice of the said proceedin g under the Recovery Act, the petitioner filed his application/objection under s ection 9 thereof denying its liability and also questioning the legality and/or validity thereof on the various grounds. By the communication No. 1251 dated 10/ 3/2010 issued by the Superintendent of Taxes (R) and Bakijai Officer, Guwahati, the petitioner was informed that his application/objection under section 9 of th e Recovery Act stood rejected. Thereby it was required to pay the entire amount of demand within a period of seven days from the receipt of the said communicati on. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 51 of the Recovery Act before the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) at Gu wahati. According to it, the said proceeding registered as Bakijai Appeal No. 1/ 2010 was fixed for records on 26/4/2010. The petitioner accordingly filed its at tendance through its Counsel. However, later in the day when its Counsel went to enquire about the order passed, it appeared that the appeal had been dismissed on merits recording the absence of the petitioner and its Counsel. Being dissati sfied with the manner of disposal of the statutory appeal, the petitioner filed an application under section 54 of the Recovery Act seeking a review of the orde r dated 26/4/2010. As by the impugned order, the review application has also bee n summarily rejected, it is before this Court for redress. 4. Whereas Mr. Bhati has urged that the manner in which the petitio ner’s application/objection under section 9 of the Recovery Act and the statutor y appeal have been disposed of, an immediate intervention of this Court is neces sary in the interest of justice. Mr. Dubey, on instructions submits without prej udice to the stand of the revenue on the merits of the demand raised that in fit ness of things, having regard to the non-speaking nature of the order dated 10/3 /2010, the issue be remanded to the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery) and Bakij ai Officer, Kamrup, for disposal of the application/objection under section 9 of the Recovery Act on merits in accordance with law. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of the pleaded facts and more particularly the orders dated 10/3/2010, 2 6/4/2010 and 6/5/2010, this Court is of the view that the course as suggested by Mr. Dubey ought to be adopted. To say the least, these orders do not bear any a ttributes of an adjudication warranted in the proceedings involved. The aforemen tioned orders are hereby quashed. The matter stands remitted to the aforemention ed authority for consideration and disposal of the application/objection under s ection 9 on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is made clear that this Court by this determination has not offered any comment on the validity or otherwise of the demand raised and it would be within the di scretion and dominion of the aforementioned authority to record an appropriate d ecision on the issue. 6. Detach WP(C) 4331/2009 from this case to be placed before the ap propriate Bench. The Petition stands allowed in the above terms. No costs.