G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement. Cement is being manufactured at the Damoh unit of the petitioner in the State of Madhya Pradesh. For distribution of cement in the State of Haryana, it has an office at Faridabad. In the year 1989-90, the petitioner was assessed by the Excise and Taxation Officer vide his order dated March 2, 1993. This order of assessment was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 3432 of 1993, which was decided by a Division Bench on October 13, 1993 (See [1994] 92 STC 475 (P&h ).) with a direction to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, before whom the appeal was filed by the petitioner passed order dated December 31, 1993/may 18, 1994 and dismissed all the appeals filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a review petition against the order of the appellate authority and it has been alleged in this petition that the review petition filed by the petitioner on September 13, 1994, is pending before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad.
(2.) PETITIONER 's assertion is that even though the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the review petition filed by it, the Assistant Collector-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer, Faridabad (West) has taken coercive steps against the petitioner. He has written a letter dated September 26, 1994 (annexure P9) to the Station Master, Faridabad City, not to deliver the goods to the petitioner. He has also written a letter dated October 11, 1994 to the Manager, State Bank of India, Narsinghgarh, district Damoh (M. P.) for the revocation of two bank guarantees. Vide his letter dated October 17, 1994, the said officer has called upon the petitioner to give a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 20 lacs under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, and Rs. 50,000 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Petitioner also filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal on November 2, 1994, along with an application for grant of stay. That appeal has also not been decided by the Tribunal. Petitioner's grievance is that while the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, has not decided the review petition filed by the petitioner, authorities of the Excise and Taxation Department are using coercive methods to compel the petitioner to succumb to their unreasonable demand.
(3.) AFTER hearing Shri Jain and after perusal of record, we are satisfied that there is no justification for the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, to withhold his decision of the review petition filed by the petitioner. Though it is for the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merit, it is not permissible for the said authority to frustrate the review petition filed by the petitioner by mere omission to decide the same.;