JUDGEMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since the two appeals arise out of judgment in two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner to challenge two assessment orders one relating to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 but since both otherwise are founded on identity of facts, therefore, we deem it just and proper to hear and decide the two appeals together. The appellant has challenged the assessment orders dated February 8, 2002 passed against M/s. Satpal & Co., Sriganganagar, for assessment year 1994-95 and demand in respect of which has been raised under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act against the appellant deeming it to be a partner of M/s. Satpal & Co. Both the writ petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed by the learned single Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant ought to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal. The principal contention of the appellant has been that he has been subjected to huge demand of over a crore rupees for two successive periods (total above Rs. 2 crores) without any basis or material to connect him with the carrying on the business of the assessee, M/s. Satpal & Co., against whom the assessment proceedings had been initiated and completed. In fact, the material which has been with the respondents and placed in reply to the writ petition confirmed that the liability of about Rs. 2 crores on account of Rajasthan sales tax, Central sales tax and with penalties and interest have been fixed on pure surmises and conjectures and contrary to his own findings and, therefore, subjecting the appellant to alternative remedy at the pains of depositing the requisite amount before filing the remedy of appeal and further to be subjected to recovery proceedings of demand in the discretion of the assessing officer makes the alternative remedy, in the facts of the case, wholly inefficacious and inadequate to relegate the petitioner to that process. On the consideration of material that has been placed on record, we are satisfied that it is a case on which the alternative remedy should not come in the way of the appellant for seeking remedy against the assessment order directly from this Court, so far as liability against him is determined. On the consideration of material that has been placed on record, we are satisfied that it is a case on which the alternative remedy should not come in the way of the appellant for seeking remedy against the assessment order directly from this Court, so far as liability against him is determined. The appellant as such has not asked for setting aside the assessment order as a whole. The appellant has stated himself to be a unit of Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited which is a public sector undertaking and is a society registered with the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and is duly registered under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. These facts are not in dispute. M/s. Satpal & Co., is the person registered as dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 at Sriganganagar which according to assessment order was found to be registered as sole proprietorship firm of one Mr. Sachin Kumar. The appellant has been held liable for the tax by stating that he along with other eleven persons named in order are deemed to be carrying on business in the name of M/s. Satpal & Co., because he has purchased two tankers of oil through an agent from M/s. Satpal & Co., Sukharia Shopping Centre, Sriganganagar, during the assessment period in question. In the course of assessment proceedings of said M/s. Satpal & Co., a notice was served on the appellant under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act read with the Central Sales Tax Act in which he was described as one of the partners of M/s. Satpal & Co. The notice was issued under rule 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for his appearance on March 22, 1997 stating that the notice is being issued while considering it as a partner. In all, the like notices were issued to 12 persons named in the notice. However, the notice does not show why the petitioner is treated as partner. Since the appellant could not appear on the date fixed, an ex parte assessment order was made in the first instance in the name of M/s. Satpal & Co., by showing 12 persons as persons responsible for the liability. However, the notice does not show why the petitioner is treated as partner. Since the appellant could not appear on the date fixed, an ex parte assessment order was made in the first instance in the name of M/s. Satpal & Co., by showing 12 persons as persons responsible for the liability. When the demand notice of this assessment order was served on the appellant, the appellant applied for setting aside of the ex parte order dated March 27, 1997. After setting aside the ex parte order dated March 27, 1997 a fresh assessment order was made in the name of M/s. Satpal & Co., which is subject-matter of this lis. Liability on the petitioner has been fixed as a person carrying on business of M/s. Satpal & Co., along with other persons. The appellant, in his application for setting aside ex parte assessment order, had disclosed that it is a Haryana State managed society and has been dealing in agricultural commodities since last so many years and that it had purchased oil from M/s. Satpal & Co., during the years in question and had made payments through account payee cheques, drafts. It denied that it had any connection with the firm as partner and made a prayer to reveal the information as material on the basis of which the appellant was treated as partner of M/s. Satpal & Co., which was a registered dealer, with the respondent authorities. The proceedings ultimately culminated in assessment order dated February 8, 2002 wherein following facts have been noticed by the assessing officer : "That M/s. Satpal & Co., was registered on September 20, 1994 by one Shri Sachin Kumar, S/o. Shri Daulat Ram resident of Sriganganagar. During the course of inquiry, the place of business was not found at 119, Sukharia Shopping Center, Sriganganagar and Sachin Kumar denied some of the builties shown to him as having not been issued by him. He stated that the firm is carried by Harbans Lal Luthra, S/o. Shri Atma Ram, resident of Abohar, presently residing at Sirsa, Rajendra Kumar Monga, S/o. Shri Tulsi Ram, resident of Fatehabad, Hisar and Manoj Kumar Monga, S/o. Shri Rajendra Kumar, resident of Fatehabad, Hisar, Haryana and he stated that these persons got his signatures while he was in intoxicated in alcohol. On the basis of sureties for the firm, he produced certain papers and record showing that such paper and record has been obtained from Shri Rajendra Kumar Monga, Shri Diwan Chand Sethi through Sethi Boot House and Harbanslal Luthra of Sirsa. With this material, the assessment order fixes the liability for carrying on the business of the firm on the relevant persons named in the assessment orders which includes the name of the appellant. However, nothing has been shown how the appellant has been connected on the material before him as a partner of the firm or as a person who carried on the business of the firm. Significantly, the petitioner has purchased oil and dealing with the firm M/s. Satpal & Co., the order refers to dealing with the firm by M/s. Bhakhra Agro Industries to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs and Rs. 1.40 crores in 1994-95 and 1996-97, respectively. However, the said person has not been connected on the basis of those transactions as a person carrying on the business of the firm." Apart from bald statement in the assessment order or the notice, it is not shown how the appellant is connected with the carrying on business of the firm M/s. Satpal & Co., which was found to be non-genuine firm registered as sole proprietorship firm, but was found to be not the sole proprietorship firm of Mr. Sachin Kumar as it purported to be under the registration certificate. The respondents have filed survey report, annexure R/1, conducted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer 1, Circle Sriganganagar. In the assessment order, the basis of deeming the appellant as partner of the firm is stated to be the said survey report. The survey report, annexure R/1, clearly reads that according to the registration certificate, M/s. Satpal & Co., was sole proprietorship firm and its sole proprietor was Mr. Sachin Kumar, S/o Shri Daulat Ram Arora. When it was not found to be true and during the survey it was found that the business to the extent carried on in the name of Satpal & Co., was not within the province or the capacity of said Sachin Kumar, the following seven persons were named, who according to available material, appears to have carried on the business of M/s. Satpal & Co. : (i) Shri Harbanslal Luthra, S/o. Shri Atma Ram, resident of Street No. 1, Jain Nagar, Abohar, presently residing at C/o. Rajan Cake House, Subhas Chowk, Sirsa, Haryana. (ii) Shri Rajendra Kumar Monga, S/o. Shri Tulsi Ram, resident of Bhattha Colony (Nagar Colony), Fatehabad, Sirsa. (iii) Shri Manoj Kumar Monga, S/o. Shri Rajendra Kumar Monga, resident of Bhattha Colony (Nagar Colony), Fatehabad, Sirsa. (iv) Shri Diwan Chand Sethi, S/o. not known, C/o. Sethi Boot House, Sangaria, Hanumangarh. (v) Shri Anil Kumar Garg, S/o. Shri Guru Prasad, resident of Agarwal Colony, Fatehabad, Haryana. (vi) Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Shri Mohanlal, resident of Dhobi Mohalla, Sirsa, C/o. Ms. Pawan Kumar Dharam Pal, Nai Anaj Mandi, Sirsa. (vii) Shri Sajeev Ahuja, S/o. Shri Ved Prakash Ahuja, Managing Director, M/s. Bhakhra Agro Industries, Sirsa. The survey report nowhere opines that the appellant, M/s. Hafed Ginning and Cotton Seed Processing Unit, is considered as a partner or a person carrying on the business of M/s. Satpal & Co. Neither in the order nor in the return, the assertion that the appellant is a unit of the Haryana State Federation and is State Government undertaking is denied. Apparently, there appears to be no material either in survey report or in the assessment order to connect the appellant as a partner of M/s. Satpal & Co., even distantly and is contrary to the positive finding recorded by the Survey Officer in his survey report about the persons who appeared to him to be carrying on the business of M/s. Satpal & Co. The liability has been fixed on the petitioner on no material, at whims and caprice of the assessing officer and the conclusion is one to which no person of ordinary prudence will ordinarily reach. In the aforesaid circumstances, each of the impugned orders to the extent it fixes liability on the appellant and raises a demand of recovery against him cannot be sustained. It shows total lack of application of mind on the part of the assessing officer that if the petitioner is a State Government concern, whether it could be a party of machination as a unit of the State Enterprises of some private persons to indulge into nefarious activity of benami transactions to evade the tax burden on their transactions. It shows total lack of application of mind on the part of the assessing officer that if the petitioner is a State Government concern, whether it could be a party of machination as a unit of the State Enterprises of some private persons to indulge into nefarious activity of benami transactions to evade the tax burden on their transactions. If at all somebody could be connected, a natural person, who might be indulging in the business of M/s. Satpal & Co., for his personal gain. But to impute such a machination on the part of a State undertaking is beyond comprehension. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. Judgment under appeal in each case is set aside. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions are also allowed to the extent that the impugned assessment orders and demand notices holding the appellant liable for the tax, penalty and interest imposed on M/s. Satpal & Co., under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act respectively shall stand quashed and the orders shall not be given effect to against the appellant. We make it clear that we otherwise express no opinion on the merit qua other persons who have been held responsible for carrying on the business of the assessee, M/s. Satpal & Co., and who have been found liable for the demand created under the assessment order. No costs. Appeals allowed.