SUMIT FUELS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Burnwal submitted that the petitioner had not been co -operative with the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, and because of the non -co -operation of the petitioner the matter could not be disposed of in time and it is because of this reason that the Court's order dated 14.8.2002 could not be complied with and implemented in time. This assertion and submission on the part of Mr. Burnwal is not at all borne out from the record. Actually this oral submission of Mr. Burnwal does not get any support from the averments made in the application for extension filed on behalf of the respondents. All that is borne out is that on 21.8.2002 a communication was sent on behalf of the Commissioner addressed to the petitioner calling the petitioner to appear on 23.8.2002 along with "necessary papers". On 23.8.2002 the petitioner did appear along with "necessary papers" as is clearly borne out from the copy of the communication of the petitioner dated 23.8.2002, which has been filed by none else than the respondents along with the Extension Application. It is altogether a different matter that on 23.8.2002 the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes himself was not available.

(2.) ON 23.8.2002 for the very first time the respondents spelt out some specific/ named documents which they called upon the petitioner to produce on 26.8.2002. The Commissioner again was not available because he had gone on leave. In what manner therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid narrative of facts, can the petitioner be held responsible in not co -operating the Commissioner has not been understood by us.

(3.) ACTUALLY , on the contrary the aforesaid facts clearly and unmistakenly point out that the petitioner rendered every possible co -operation and the matter could not be disposed of only because of the fault and neglect on the part of the respondents. In the face of this factual background, Mr. Burnwal's assertion and accusation of no co -operation by the petitioner is not at all correct. The respondents have not complied with the Court's direction dated 14.8.2002, apparently and prima facie, purposely and deliberately.