IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2686 of 2009 ==================================================== M/S Four Star Picture Palace, Purnia through its managing partner Sri Kumar Roy, son of Ram Narayan Roy, resident of Mohalla- Sipahi Tola, P.O.-Purnia, P.S.-Khazanchihat District-Purnia …………………….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Secretary Cum-Commissioner, Commercial Tax department, Government of Bihar New Secretariat, 2. The Chairman, Commercial Tax Tribunal, New Secretariat Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Patna. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Purnia Circle, Purnia. 5. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial tax (Appeal), Purnia division Purnia. 6. The Commercial tax officer, Purnia. 7. The District Magistrate, Purnia. ……………………. Respondents . ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner: Mr. Madhav Roy, Advocate Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE & HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 18.01.2011 Learned Advocate Mr. Madhav Roy has appeared for the petitioner-M/s Four Star picture palace. He candidly admits that this matter arises out of the entertainment tax and the penalty imposed upon 2 the petitioner under the Bihar Entertainment Act, 1948. Against the order of penalty the petitioner has preferred Appeal Nos. 18 of 2008 and 19 of 2008 before the Commercial Taxes Appellate Tribunal. As at the relevant time the Tribunal was not functional, the present writ petition was filed. At present the Tribunal is functional and is seized of the above referred appeal Nos. 18 of 2008 and 19 of 2008. In view of the appeals pending before the Tribunal in the same subject matter the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The petition is accordingly disposed of. We may note that the petitioner has also raised certain issues against the officers of the Department. Learned advocate has submitted that the impugned action is the result of a scam for which the manager of the petitioner was punished. Although, no wrong of the magnitude could be committed but for the complicity of the officers of the Department. For that an inquiry is necessitated. As to the involvement of the officers of the Department, the petitioner may avail of the remedy before the appropriate forum. Patna High Court/ Dated the 18th January 2011/ Bibhash/N.A.F.R. ( R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)