IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13753 of 2008 RAM BIHARI PANDIT son of late Badri Pandit, resident of village and P.O. Kamalpura, Police Station Paroo, District Muzaffarpur…. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, 3. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur, 4. The District Mining Officer, Muzaffarpur, …. 11 01.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. On the basis of information furnished by respondent no. 4, a proceeding was taken against the petitioner under section 17(5) of the Bihar Finance Act((hereinafter to be referred to as “Act”) on the plea that he was granted permission for carrying on business of brick manufacturing in village Basitha, for which he is said to have deposited royalty amount. It is the case of the petitioner that during the financial year 1994-95 he did not carry on any brick manufacturing business and he did only agricultural operation. He also relied upon a letter, which he got from the District Mining Officer, Muzaffarpur under the provisions of the Right to Information Act stating therein that he was never granted any licence for brick 2 manufacturing business for the financial year 1994-95. It is also stated that assessment order was passed on 12.08.2000 against the petitioner. It is also stated that before passing the assessment order, no notice under the provisions of the Act was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner also preferred a revision before respondent no. 2 stating therein that he did not carry on any brick manufacturing business during the financial year 1994-95, but the aforesaid revision application was dismissed by a cryptic order, as contained in annexure 4. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner also produced the letter, which he got under the provisions of the Right to Information Act and stated that he did not pay any royalty amount. In the above circumstances, we allow this writ application and set aside the impugned order dated 12.08.2000 passed by the original authority and direct the original authority to decide the matter afresh after giving notice to the petitioner, where the petitioner will be given opportunity to produce all relevant papers, which will be considered and disposed of on its own merit. Till fresh order is passed, no coercive action for 3 recovery of the assessment amount will be taken against the petitioner for the financial year 1994-95. It is also made clear that when the notice will be given to the petitioner, he should appear and cooperate in the proceeding before the original authority. (J.B. Koshy, CJ) SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)