- (1.) MR. S.L. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of final assessment dated 28.9.2010 communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 1127 EEE/S/Adityapur dated 5.10.2010 has been passed without considering the petitioner's case and the objection to the provisional assessment, and without giving reasons.
(2.) MR. Rajan Raj, learned counsel for the Board, supported the impugned order and submitted that petitioner signed on inspection report, which was found to be correct by the Assessing Officer as there was no sufficient documents produced by the petitioner in support of its contention. In reply, Mr. Agarwal submitted that even after signing the inspection report, petitioner is permitted under the law to file objection to the provisional assessment. He further submitted that the load is mentioned on the machines themselves which could be verified/ checked by the respondents and/or their experts. It appears from the impugned order that no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. It is simply said that the inspection report is correct because there is no documents produced by the petitioner and the documents produced are not satisfactory. Such order cannot be upheld by this Court. In the circumstances, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer-Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Adityapur ( respondent no. 4), who will pass a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and in accordance with law, as early as possible and preferably within 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The parties will co-operate in early disposal of the matter.
(3.) IT is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the respective cases of the parties. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Rajan Raj, as prayed.;