- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the assessment order dated 25.01.2007 (Annexure-5), which is for the year 2002-03 passed under Section 17 (3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bokaro Circle, Bokaro. By this order, the petitioner has been imposed tax to the tune of Rs. 39,83,019.32 against admitted tax liability of Rs. 2,20,474 on account of additional tax including surcharge and imposed tax on turnover of Rs. 1,98,34,946 relating to the works contracts executed by sub-contractors and also imposed tax on tax-paid sale of Rs. 2,00,43,101.
(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner order dated 25.1.2007 is an anti-dated order and it was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a Government of India Undertaking and his representative was continuously appearing before the assessing officer and lastly he was asked to appear on 2.05.2005, which is apparent from the order-sheet dated 21 st March, 2005 and which was duly counter-signed by the representative of the writ petitioner. However, on 2.05.2005, neither the case of the petitioner was taken up nor any fresh date was communicated to the writ petitioner and the matter was taken after about six months on 21.11.2005. From 21.11.2005 several dates were given and on that dates, it was ordered that fresh notice be issued to the assessee but no notice was issued to the assessee. Not only this, in supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents, this fact has been specifically admitted by the respondents that after 21 st March, 2005 and onwards no notice was given to the petitioner by the assessing officer. It is submitted that not only this but even after purported making assessment on 25.1.2007, as alleged by the assessing officer, no demand notice was served upon the petitioner for more than two and half years. It is further submitted that the assessment order was passed definitely anti-dated and this finds support from the fact that in the margin of the order-sheet dated 25.01.2007 it is mentioned that a demand notice was also dispatched on 31.01.2007. This fact is contrary to the respondents own document, i.e., demand notice (Annexure-3) dated 31.01.2007 which has been served upon the assessee, which is a public sector undertakings, on 26.10.2009. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner all the facts are available for drawing an inference that all the order-sheets, after 21 st March, 2005 have been drawn in one day and all the proceedings are anti-dated. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Ramakishtaiah & Ors, 1994 93 STC 406).;