(t^L {ss-Bl IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (T) No. 2^-63 of 2011 PETITIONER: %° RESPONDENTS: M/s Punjabi Restaurant a partnership firm duly registered under The Partnership Act, 1932 having its business at Anand Hotel Premises, Railway Market, Bilaspur, (C.G.) .through its partner Shri Harbansh Lal Ajmani, S/o Shri Mulk Raj Ajmani aged about 58 years r/o Dayalbandh, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. ^ State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Finance, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh /' 2. ' Deputy Coramissioner, Commercial Tax, Sales Tax Office, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur. 3. '' The Commercial Tax Officer, Zone-3, Circle-3, Sales Tax Office, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FORJSSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE WARRANT 1. PARTICULAR OF THE PETITIONER: As stated in the cause title above. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS; '- As stated in the cause title above. HIGHCOURTO&CI-IHAmSGARH : BILASPUR WE?rTPETiT!QNCn_NQ.2769C£:2011 PETITIONER RESR3NDENTS PFTITIONER RESPQNDENTS PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS M/s. Punjabi Restaurant Versus 1:1 ,, State of CNiattlsgarh & Others WRIT PETITION mNo- 3473 OF2011 M/s. Punjabi Jalpan Grah ; Vereus s ) State of Chhattisgarti & CShers WRIT PETITION m No. 3476 CF 2011. M/s. Punjabl Hindu Hote! Versus ! State of Chhattisgarh & Others WR1T PETITION m No. 3478 OF2011 M/s. Classio Restaurant Versus State of Chhattisgarti & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226Q27 of the Caistitution of tndia) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K Agnfhotri, J. Present:- Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate for the pettioners. Shri Arun Sao. Govemment Advocate for the State. .. ORDER (Passed on this 23"' day of September, 2011) 1. Sinoe, W. P. (T). Nos; 2769, 3473, 3476 & 3478 of 2011 jnvolve the same question of facts and law, they are being considered and decided by thls common order. 2. At the very outset, Shri Sao, learned Government Advocat6appearing for the State respondents submits that there issome defieiency in the assessment order, thus, the assesslng officer may be permitted to reconsider and decide the same, in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. - 3. In view of foregoing, the assessment orders dated 28.04.2010 [Annexure P-3 in W.P.fH No.2769/2011, Annexure P-3 inW.P.CT) No.3473/2011, Annexure P-1 in W.P.fT) N0.3476C011 & Annexure P-3 in W.P.(T) No.3478/2011] and thereafter, consequential steps also are quashed and the liberty is granted to the ass^sing officer to proceed further; as aforestated submission. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. ashok Sdl- S^^A? judge