Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7.8.1992 (Annexure P -2) passed by respondent No. 3 for the assessment year 1985 -86 vide which the order dated 29.9.1986 passed by the assessing authority was reversed and additional demand of Rs. 1,49,416/ - was created; order dated 3.2.1997 (Annexure P -6) passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal of the assessee filed against the order dated 7.8.1992 (Annexure P -2); order dated 9.6.1997 (Annexure P -7) whereby the review petition filed against the order (Annexure P -6) by the assessee under Section 41 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (in short "the Act") was dismissed and order dated 9.9.1998 (Annexure P -8) vide which the review application against the order (Annexure P -7) was dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner firm was assessed for the assessment year 1985 -86 vide order dated 29.9.1986 (Annexure P -1) by the assessing authority. The petitioner was also similarly assessed for the assessment year 1987 -88 on 9.6.1989. Respondent No. 3 issued three notices dated 14.6.1991, 29.11.1991 and 6.6.1992 to the assessee under Section 40(2) read with Section 36 of the Act. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 7.8.1992 (Annexure P -2) revised the assessment order for the assessment year 1985 -86. Further, Vide order dated 7.8.1992 (Annexure P -5), respondent No. 3 also revised the assessment order for the assessment year 1987 -88. Against the orders dated 7.8.1992, the assessee filed appeal before respondent No. 2 who vide order dated 3.2.1997 (Annexure P -6) accepted the appeal for the assessment year 1987 -88 whereas upheld the order of respondent No. 3 for the assessment year 1985 -86. Thereafter, the assessee filed a review petition under Section 41 of the Act against the order (Annexure P -6). Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 9.6.1997 (Annexure P -7) dismissed the review petition. The assessee again filed review petition against the order (Annexure P -7) before the Tribunal who vide order dated 9.9.1998 (Annexure P -8) dismissed the same. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner restricted the claim in the writ petition to the charging of interest by the respondent -State. It was urged that in view of the judgments of this Court in Eicher Tractors Limited and another v. State of Haryana and another : (2011) 38 PHT 147 (P & H) and M/s. Chaudhary Tractor Company, Tohana, Distt. Sirsa v. State of Haryana, : STI 2006 Punjab and Haryana High Court 55, the levy of interest under Section 25(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (in short "the Act") would be only from the date of revisional order passed under Section 40(2) read with Section 36 of the Act.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.;