IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10553 of 2008 **** M/s Vinod Enterprises through its proprietor, namely, Kumar Parmendra, Son of Late Sarju Pd. Singh, resident of Mohalla-New Area, G.T. Road, P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Sasaram Circle. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Sasaram Circle. 5. The Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Taxes, Sasaram. ….. …… Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhaya, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. J.P.Karn, Additional Advocate General-IX ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 1st October, 2008. In paragraph 5, 7 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the following statement has been made: - “5. That it is stated that the petitioner is an authorized distributor in Sasaram of M/s Punjab Tractors limited, a tractor company. Unfortunately the Assessment records of the petitioner for the years 2001-02 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 maintained in the Sasaram Circle has been misplaced and could not be traced as yet. The petitioner had taken certified copy of the order sheet and assessment orders of those records from the circle office and has made available to the circle. Photo state copies of the same. - 2 - 7. That it is further respectfully stated that the assessment for the year 2004-2005 is in process and soon it shall be completed. 12. That under the circumstances as stated above the Respondents pray before the Hon’ble Court to allow at least four months time for making refund to the petitioner after examination of sale and purchase figure of the petitioner.” 2. The counsel for the respondents also assures us that refund to the petitioner shall be made within four months from today after examination of sale and purchase figure on reconstruction of the record. 3. The counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the stand of the respondents. 4. No further order needs to be passed by us in the writ petition. It is disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-