IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.13822 of 2010 ==================================================== Padam Gas Distributor, a proprietorship concern having its office at G.H. Road, Forbesganj, P.O. & P.S. Forbesganj through its proprietor Padam Kumar Badalia, son of Shri Rikhab Chand Badalia, G.H. Road, P.O. & P.S. Forbesganj. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes having its office at Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. Commercial Taxes Officer, Forbesganj Circle having its office at Forbesganj. ….. ….. Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner: Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5. 6.4.2011. With the consent of the learned advocates the petition is heard and decided today. The petitioner, a registered dealer has in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the orders of reassessment dated 25th June 2010 for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 made under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and the demand notice dated 25th June 2010. The challenge is three fold. First, the impugned orders of assessment and the consequent demand have been made without notice to the dealer. Second, the impugned orders and the consequential demand have been made beyond the statutory period of - 2 - eight years from the date of the assessment; and that the prescribed authority has not recorded satisfaction as envisaged by Section 19(1) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. None of the aforesaid three challenges is contested. The proceedings before the authority below do disclose that the impugned orders were made without issuing notice to the dealer; that until the expiry of eight years envisaged by sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act no notice was served upon the dealer; Neither the impugned orders nor the counter affidavit disclose satisfaction recorded by the prescribed authority. As none of the pre-requisites is satisfied the impugned orders and the consequential demands are vitiated. The petition is allowed. The impugned orders of reassessment and the consequent demand are quashed and set aside. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)