IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18488 of 2008 Mahanth Ram Bardhiki Shastri s/o late Bhola sharma, resident of village – Kauwahan, P.S. Govindganj, District – East Champaran (Motihari), proprietor, Sharma Trading Co. Areraj, Motihari (East Champaran) ………….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Motihari, East Champaran 3. Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 4. Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna through its Secretary …………… Respondents --- For the petitioner : Mr. Mukul Sinha, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG – III Mr. S. Bharti, AC to AAG - III ----------- 3 11-02-2009 This application has been filed for quashing the assessment orders (Annexure -1 series) as also the order dismissing the appeal (Annexure -2) against the aforesaid assessment orders and order dated 17th June, 2008 dismissing the revisions. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner aggrieved by the orders of assessment (Annexure -1 series) earlier came to this Court in CWJC. No.6977 of 2004. In face of remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, this Court by order - 2 - dated 30th June, 2004 accorded permission to the petitioner to withdraw the writ application and file appeal. While doing so, it observed as follows: “Accordingly, this writ application is permitted to be withdrawn. The petitioner has been pursuing the remedy before this Court under a bona fide legal advice. In that view of the matter, if an appeal is filed before the appellate authority within six weeks from today, along with a limitation petition, then the appellate authority will consider the question of limitation favourably keeping in view the aforesaid fact.” In the light of the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal within six weeks but did not file any application for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), by the impugned order dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. The Commercial Taxes Tribunal by order dated 17th of June, 2008 also affirmed the aforesaid order. Mr. Mukul Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the appellate authority ought not to have dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and the revisional authority should not have affirmed that order. - 3 - We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha. While according permission to withdraw the writ petition, this Court directed the petitioner to file appeal with limitation petition. The petitioner had not chosen to do that. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellate authority and the revisional authority did not err in dismissing the appeal and the revision on the ground of limitation. We do not find any merit in this writ application. It is dismissed in limine. Neyaz/- C. K. Prasad, ACJ. S. K. Sharma, J.