ORDER S.K. Seth, J. Petitioner is assailing the order dated 24-2-2001 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, upholding the order of assessment and the penalty under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for the period from 1-4-1990 to 31-3-1991 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax Indore. Necessary facts in brief are that the petitioner is registered partnership concern. It carries on business as consignment agent in the sale and purchase of tea. Petitioner is duly registered dealer and as such there is no dispute about its liability to pay the tax. According to petitioner, during the assessment period in question, the rate of tax on tea was 10% from 1-4-1990 to 30-7-1990. From 1-8-1990, the rate of tax on loose tea was reduced to 7% by virtue of the Notification issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 12 of the Act (Annexure P-1). The meaning of the expression 'loose tea' was also clarified later on by the State Government vide Notification dated 3-11-1990 to mean tea sold in bulk in packages of 20 kgs. and above i.e. not in small packets within the package of 20 Kgs. or more. Petitioner claimed and paid tax availing the benefit of said Notifications in respect of taxable turnover of loose tea in the assessment year in question. Before assessment order could be made, the business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Flying Squad on 4-9-1991 and a combined report (Annexure P-3) for the assessment period 1990-91 and 1991-92 was submitted. The assessing authority, vide assessment order dated 28-1-1992, rejected the petitioner's plea that it is liable to pay the sales tax @ 7% as against 10% regarding the taxable turnover of loose tea, consequently, raised additional demand of tax and penalty under 43(1) of the Act for the evasion of tax. Said Order was challenged by the petitioner in revision along with an application for stay. Said stay application was rejected therefore, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court (W.P. No. 689/92) which was disposed off (Annexure P-5) with the direction to dispose off the revision on merits, expeditiously within a month. Consequently by the order impugned, the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected, hence this petition. After notice, respondents have filed reply to justify the levy of differential amount of tax and the imposition of penalty. Consequently by the order impugned, the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected, hence this petition. After notice, respondents have filed reply to justify the levy of differential amount of tax and the imposition of penalty. It was contended that petitioner being a registered dealer, knew all along its liability to pay the tax at the proper rate, but deliberately failed to pay the due tax, therefore, is liable to pay the differential amount together with the penalty. At the time of hearing learned counsel raised various contentions but it is not necessary to deal with all of them in view of the following discussion. While dealing with the controversy, it would relevant to keep in mind the undisputed fact that investigation report of the Flying Squad was also relied by the assessing officer while making the assessment of the subsequent period (1991-92). The findings in this regard was not accepted by the Board of Revenue in second appeal (Annexure P-7) and it was held that merely on surmises it could not be held that assessee indulged in evasion of tax and the appeal was allowed and matter was referred back for passing a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. There is no denial of the fact that against said order, application made by the Revenue u/s 44(1) of the Act was rejected by the Board and thereafter attempt to seek a reference u/s 44(2) was unsuccessful. Thus, if the impugned order is allowed to stand, there would two different measures for assessment of tax on the same commodity during the subsistence of Statutory Notifications. This is unacceptable, therefore, on this short ground alone, we of the view, that the petition should be allowed with a direction to the assessing officer to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. In view of foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the order Annexure P-2 and the order Annexure P-10 are hereby set aside and quashed and the matter is referred back to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Parties shall bear their own costs. Order accordingly. Final Result : Allowed