HARIHAR PRASAD KAPILDEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajnandan Prasad, Junior Counsel to the Advocate General representing the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is a wholesale Kerosene dealer. He seeks to challenge an ex parte order of assessment dated 21.9.2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Danapur Circle, Danapur under Section 17(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 . The order coming under challenge relates to the assessment period 2001 -02 and it creates a demand of Rs. 2,39,339.91 against the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar submitted that on kerosene oil sales tax was paid at the first instance of sale and had the petitioner been given an opportunity to represent its case, it would have satisfied the Assistant Commissioner by production of Form IXC that due taxes were paid to the Oil Company on all purchases of kerosene oil made by him. Needless to say that according to the petitioner no notice was ever served upon him and the impugned order was passed behind his back without any notice or an opportunity of hearing.

(3.) FROM the counter affidavit it appears that service of notice was effected by pasting it on the business premises of the petitioner.