IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8653 of 2007 SRI KRISHNAJEE RAI S/O LATE JAGDISH RAI, R/O VILLAGE- EKONA,PS-SIMRI,DISTT-BUXAR--PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER & SECY., COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, BUXAR CIRCLE, BUXAR 4. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, BUXAR CIRCLE, BUXAR 5. SDO-CUM- CERTIFICATE OFFICER,DUMRAON,DISTT- BUXAR 6. INSPECTOR, MINES DISTRICT MINES OFFICE, BHOJPUR & BUXAR-----------------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 18.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner filed objection before the Certificate Officer taking a stand that he is not the owner of the Brick Klin and he did any business of brick manufacturing. Therefore the present certificate proceeding namely 26 of 2002-03 has been wrongly initiated against him. The objection of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 6.2.2007 indicating therein that there are materials on record to show which emerges out of the inspection of the site by the Sale Tax authority that petitioner is the person behind the said Brick Klin. This according to learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced kind of reasoning and basis for rejection. The petitioner has brought a certificate obtained from the Mines Inspector, Buxar dated 24.4.2007 that for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03 the petitioner has not done any work relating to brick manufacturing. The stand of the respondent in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner is the owner. There are tax liabilities which - 2 - have been fixed against him and failure on his part to deposit sale tax has led to institution of the certificate proceeding in question. Even according to the material which has been brought on record by the petitioner the name of the petitioner does figure in annexures-2 and 3 which are the assessment orders which had come to be passed. No doubt it reads as Baijnath Rai Krishna Rai. The Certificate Officer had done no wrong by rejecting the objection of the petitioner by rightly stating that at no point of time the petitioner has challenged those assessments before the sale tax and has kept mum and this amount to admission. The other aspect which the Court noticed is that annexure-7 is of a date after passing of the impugned order by the Certificate Officer. The impugned order is dated 6.2.2007 and the so called certificate has been obtained on 24.4.2007. Since it is a document of subsequent date which was not produced before the Certificate Officer then the reason for rejection of the objection of the petitioner cannot be said to be faultily because no subsequent material is expected to be considered in a previous order. If those materials are not there and order has been passed with regard to the objection on the document available on record, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The authenticity of annexure-7 can be tested in an appropriate proceeding but as of now the Court is not willing to exonerate the petitioner from the liability based on annexure-7. Let the petitioner appear before the Certificate Officer and make a - 3 - final submission in the proceeding. No interference is required in the impugned order. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)