IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4055 of 2009 M/S Krishi Machinery, G.T. Road, Aurangabad through its proprietor, Birendra Kumar Singh, S/o-Raghunandan Prasad Singh, R/o Mohalla-New Area, P.S. Aurangabad Town, District-Aurangabad. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Sales Taxes, Aurangabad Circle, Aurangabd. 3. The District Certificate Officer, Aurangabad. -Respondents. ----------- 03 13.05.2009 The petitioner challenges the certificate proceedings being Certificate Case No. 3/2006-07, as pending before the District Certificate Officer, Aurangabad. The said certificate case was instituted for recovery of taxes and penalty, as imposed upon the petitioner under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (Relevant Sales Tax law for the time being enforced). A reference to the requisition would show that for a different assessment orders different amount of tax liability have been determined with or without penalty, which sought to be recovered in this one proceeding. Firstly to this Court, this is not appropriate. Each assessment order is separate and distinct cause of action, a separate certificate proceeding has to be instituted, again if penalty is separately imposed, a separate proceeding has to be instituted. This is so because the petitioner is expected to reply, which to be followed by adjudication on all issues. If in one certificate several distinct and different issues are mixed up then the consideration cannot be possible. Thus, a consolidated certificate proceeding for different and distinct dues, in my view, is not permissible. Coming to particular facts. Learned counsel for the 2 petitioner states that most of the assessment orders were passed for failure of petitioner to file Form-IXC, as contemplated thereunder. This is statutory form, which a selling dealer has to give to petitioner in respect of goods on which sales tax has been charged by the selling dealer at the first point to avoid multiplicity of charges of tax on the same commodity. Here, apparently the dealer, petitioner failed to produce Form-IXC and, as such, was assessed to tax and penalties. He filed revision application before the Commissioner. The assessment orders have been set aside and matter remanded to the Assessing Officer to take into account Form-IXC, as furnished by the petitioner later and reassessed the liability. This is done then the whole basis of certificate proceeding gets eroded. The foundation assessment, which assessment itself has been set aside and the matter remanded. So far as penalty is concerned, the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes has directed petitioner to prefer appeal. Normally, when the assessment order being set aside the commensurate penalty order also stands deleted. Be that as it may, it is clear from these events that the liability is yet to crystallize and finalize. The liability not being crystallized and finalized. In my view, the certificate proceeding cannot proceed. The Requisitioning Officer to seek first manner of the proceedings then where matters are pending in appeal or revision, thus, having not attained finality. The Certificate Court should not proceed any further in the matter till these matters are settled. There cannot be any adjudication in terms of Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act and unless there is such adjudication the question of taking coercive 3 steps for enforcement of certificate dues does not arise. In such a situation, further proceedings in the Certificate Case No. 3/2006-07 pending before the District Certificate Officer, Aurangabad is stayed for the Requisitioning Officer to take appropriate steps, as indicated above. Once those steps are taken, the petitioner would be noticed and then petitioner would be entitled to file objection and it is only after those objections are disposed of proceedings would proceed. All actions issuing distress warrants and arrest warrants are thus set aside in the said proceedings. The writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)