IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9722 of 2008 M/S MAGADH HOTEL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rabindra Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General No. III. ----- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 22nd July, 2008. After having heard the counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner must be relegated to remedy of appeal provided under section 13 of the Bihar Taxation on Luxuries in Hotels Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’). 2. It is pertinent to notice that aggrieved by order dated 26th August, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, for the period from 1991-92 to 2001-02, the petitioner invoked the power of the Commissioner under section 15 of the Act of 1988. From the order of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, it transpires that initially he wanted the petitioner to deposit 50% of the demand. The petitioner did not seem inclined to do that. Then the petitioner was suggested by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, to approach the appellate forum under section 13 of the Act of 1988. The order of the Commissioner records that to that also there was no proper response of the petitioner. In this backdrop, the - 2 - Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, rejected the application made by the petitioner under section 15 of the Act of 1988 for revising the order dated 26th August, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes pertaining to period 1991-92 to 2001-02. 3. The Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents, does not seem to be averse if the petitioner approaches the appellate forum under section 13 of the Act of 1988. 4. We are, thus, satisfied that the petitioner must pursue the statutory remedy of appeal under section 13 of the Act of 1988 for the redressal of his grievances. Obviously, by this time, limitation for filing the appeal(s) has expired. However, upon showing sufficient cause, the appellate authority is competent to condone the delay. We observe that in case the petitioner prefers appeal(s) challenging the order of assessment under section 8 or imposition of penalty under section 10 of the Act of 1988, the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law uninfluenced by the order dated 25th March, 2008 passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in exercise of its power under section 15 of the Act of 1988. 5. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/