A.K. Gohil, J.
1. Heard.
2. In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an assessee, has challenged annexure P/9 which is an order granting instalments passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax dated July 18, 2002. It is admitted by Shri Choudhary that the Commissioner has passed this order annexure P/9 dated July 18, 2002 on the basis of his application for grant of instalments which was filed on July 18, 2002 as annexure P/8. Thereafter, on the basis of annexure P/9, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax issued a demand notice by annexure P/12, which as per Shri Choudhary is a garnishee order.
3. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that after passing the order of annexure P/9, his case was registered before the BIFR and therefore after registration of the case before the BIFR his submission is that the money cannot be recovered and notice annexure P/12 cannot be issued and, thus, prayed for its quashment. During the course of the argument, Shri Choudhary admits that when the Commissioner passed the order on July 18, 2002 by annexure P/9, his case before the BIFR was not registered and only thereafter the case was registered before the BIFR vide annexure P/10, which is an order dated July 31, 2002. Therefore, it is very much clear that when the order was passed by the Commissioner on July 18, 2002 the matter of registration of the case before the BIFR was not before the Commissioner. His submission is that after the registration of the case before the BIFR he submitted an application annexure P/11 on September 14, 2002, before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax and also forwarded a copy to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax and also to Commercial Tax Officer. Shri Choudhary submitted that the department has also approached BIFR. In fact, according to me the petitioner could have applied for the modification of the order or could have filed objection before the Commissioner after his case was registered before the BIFR. In fact, it is for the Commissioner to consider the order and consequences of the order passed by the BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Therefore, it is clear that when the Commissioner passed the order (annexure P/9) there was no case before him about the registration of case before the BIFR and, thereafter the petitioner has not filed fresh objection and directly has filed this petition. It is for the authority concerned to consider the objections about registration of the case before the BIFR and also about orders passed and its consequences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits before me that after passing order by the BIFR he has not filed any such objection before the Commissioner either for modification or for considering this objection which is being raised before this Court. In this petition he submits that he had filed objections before the Deputy Commissioner and forwarded its copy to Commissioner. I think this is not the proper procedure for filing objections, before concerned authority. He should file proper objections, before proper authority.
5. Therefore, according to this Court this petition can be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority and to file necessary objections and pray for their consideration before the concerned authority. If any such objections are filed by the petitioner it is expected that the concerned authority being a quasi-judicial authority shall decide the same in accordance with law. The petitioner may also pray for grant of stay before the concerned authority. Thus under the facts and circumstances of the case with the aforesaid direction this petition is finally disposed of with no order as to costs.