JUDGMENT D. N. CHOUDHURY, J. - This writ petition arises out of an order dated 31st July, 1992 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes cancelling the assessment order for the periods ending 31st March, 1988, 30th September, 1988 and 31st March, 1989 under section 20 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Assam Sales Tax Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act and possessed a registration certificate. The petitioner for the periods ending 31st March, 1988, 30th September, 1988 and 31st March, 1989 was assessed by the Superintendent of Taxes and petitioner submitted return and the assessing officer assessed the same under section 17(3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act read with Central Sales Tax Act holding turnover nil giving exemption under 1986 incentive scheme. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes by memo dated 9th May, 1971 intimated the petitioner that the benefit of tax for the periods as mentioned above under section 3A was erroneously given though the petitioner was not entitled for such concession. He was accordingly directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner to show cause as to why the assessments should not be cancelled and the proceeding under section 31(1) of the said Act read with section 9(2) should not be initiated to realise the dues on the inter-States sales. The petitioner submitted his show cause. The Assistant Commissioner took up the matter on receipt of the reply of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner addressed him a letter on 1st July, 1992 stating that section 3A of the Assam Sales Tax Act has imposed some conditions for benefit of tax exemption. The relevant letter is extracted below : "Section 3A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 has imposed some conditions for benefit of tax exemption under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Act, 1986. Unless these conditions are fulfilled the tax exemption will not be allowed to such new industries. Moreover the same taxable goods produced or sold in the State by other dealers are taxed as per provision of the appropriate Act, i.e., tax benefit is given only to new industries under certain conditions. These conditions among other things include the possession of the certificate of authorisation vide section 4 of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Act, 1986. Moreover the same taxable goods produced or sold in the State by other dealers are taxed as per provision of the appropriate Act, i.e., tax benefit is given only to new industries under certain conditions. These conditions among other things include the possession of the certificate of authorisation vide section 4 of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Act, 1986. As such the exemption granted under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 cannot be said to be general but it is conditional. As regards the argument put forward by your learned advocate at the time of hearing on 21st May, 1991 about the stay order of the honourable High Court of Assam in a similar case (Civil Rule No. 1776/90) we have not yet received any final verdict on the matter. Under these circumstances in my opinion the tax will be leviable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for your inter-State sales for the period ending 30th May, 1988, 30th September, 1988 and 31st March, 1989. However, your are given another chance to produce materials in support of your case on 15th July, 1992 at 11 a.m. failing which necessary orders will be passed as per provision of the present Act for levy of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for these periods." 2. By order dated 31st July, 1992 the Assistant Commissioner accordingly directed to complete the assessment as per the aforesaid order. The order of the Assistant Commissioner is not happily worded however and by itself it will not make the proceeding faulty. 3. Dr. Saraf submitted in the course of his argument that the Assistant Commissioner fell into serious error in taking note of records subsequent to the first order of assessment. It was submitted that the Assistant Commissioner could not act on matters subsequent to the order of assessment including the decision of the Supreme Court. Dr. Saraf further submits that this case was heard by one Assistant Commissioner and one who passed the order are two different persons and therefore it is violative of principles of natural justice. 4. Dr. It was submitted that the Assistant Commissioner could not act on matters subsequent to the order of assessment including the decision of the Supreme Court. Dr. Saraf further submits that this case was heard by one Assistant Commissioner and one who passed the order are two different persons and therefore it is violative of principles of natural justice. 4. Dr. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority [1992] 85 STC 432; (1992) 2 SCC 683 which is followed by this Court in Mahavir Coke Industries v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam [1995] 97 STC 186. 5. Dr. Saraf in course of his argument also fairly mentioned the decision of a Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. reported in [1995] 96 STC 355; (1995) 1 SCC 58 . Dr. Saraf however submitted that when the assessment order was cancelled by the learned Assistant Commissioner on 3rd August, 1992 the law laid down in Pine Chemicals [1992] 85 STC 432 (SC); (1992) 2 SCC 683 was very much a good law and in the light of the law laid down in Pine Chemicals [1992] 85 STC 432 (SC); (1992) 2 SCC 683 by the judgment dated 16th January, 1992, the cancellation of the earlier assessment was illegal. Dr. Saraf in his argument further submitted that even the decision in Mahavir Coke Industries [1995] 97 STC 186 of this Court was sought to be reviewed by the State Government and even after the review of the judgment of the Pine Chemicals the Supreme Court however turned down the SLP filed by the State of Assam. 6. Dr. Saraf in support of his submission brought my attention to the photo copy of the order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only dismissed the SLP in limine and no legal question as such was decided. The decision of rejection of SLP cannot be a ground to overlook the law laid down by the Supreme Court in review petition (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. reported in [1995] 96 STC 355; (1995) 1 SCC 58 ) and the Supreme Court by the aforesaid decision laid down the law and it is now a binding law on this Court. The impugned order dated 31st July, 1992/3rd August, 1992, was passed on consideration of the records and the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes dated 1st July, 1992. The impugned order is passed lawfully and at any rate no injustice is caused. 7. Considering the case and in the light of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court [Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. [1995] 96 STC 355; (1995) 1 SCC 58 ], I do not find any merit and accordingly, it stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.