IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1594 of 2007 M/S SAI IRON INDIA LIMITED, SABALPUR, DIDARGANJ, PATNA CITY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SRI SAJJAN KUMAR KEDIA AGED 50 YEARS S/O LATE CHOTE LAL KEDIA R/O JAGAT APARTMENT, BANK ROAD, PATNA, P.O. G.P.O. & P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, DIST. PATNA. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS . 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES PATNA CITY CIRCLE PATNA. 4. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PATNA CITY, EAST CIRCLE PATNA CITY, PATNA. ------ RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Sinha, Sr.Advocate Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Advocate & Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G.3 & Mr. Satyabir Bharti,Advocate. ----------- 26. 12.11.2009 Heard Mr. Ajit Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General No.3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.02.2009, passed by the learned assessing officer for the period 2006- 2007, passed under the Provisions of Section 32 of the Bihar Value Added Tax, 2005, and Rule 22 of the Rules thereunder. Learned Additional Advocate General has raised the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy/remedies available under the Act. The same are exhaustive and provide efficacious remedy/ remedies to the petitioner. He relies on the judgment in 2 the case of Jaiswal Soap Factory, Simri (in all), Bakhtiyarpur vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.(in all) reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 572. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is one of those cases where the petitioner may not be required to exhaust the statutory remedy/remedies and, in view of the position that it raises a pure question of law, the writ petition may be disposed of on merits. He relies on the line of cases wherein it is held that issues which can be examined by the High Court as pure questions of law, the petitioner should not be relegated to the statutory remedy to avoid harassment. He also submits that law is well settled by a long line of cases of the Supreme Court and High Courts that the representation(s) made before the Bank to obtain credit facility is not by itself adequate evidence to decide the issue of concealment, and the same should be corroborated by worthwhile evidence which is absent in the present case. He further submits that sub section (2) of Section 32 is ultra-vires because, to use an expression of the criminal jurisprudence, it amounts to awarding sentence before conviction. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we would prefer to relegate the petitioner to the statutory remedy/remedies available under the Act. It goes without saying that the appellate authority in terms of Section 72 of the Act is a forum of facts and is bound to adjudicate all 3 issues of facts and law completely over-looking the views recorded by the learned assessing officer. In that view of the matter, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to withdraw this writ petition with the liberty to exhaust the statutory remedy/remedies available under the Act which, if preferred within a period of four weeks from today, shall be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law. Sym/ ( S.K.Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)