JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - This order shall dispose of three wit petitions being W.P. No. 4418 of 2008, W.P. No. 4419 of 2008 and W.P. No. 4420 of 2008, as a common challenge has been made to penalty orders passed by the assessing authority and revisional orders passed by the revisional authority, whereby the revision petitions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. Three petitions have been filed for three separate assessment years. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from W.P. No. 4418 of 2008. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of purchase and sale of timber. It has been claimed that the petitioner had primarily dealt in tax-paid goods, i.e., purchase of timber from local registered dealers for its resale in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner was initially assessed to commercial tax vide order dated December 19, 2000. On the basis of some third party information, claimed to have been collected by the authorities of the Commercial Tax Department, it was maintained by the Department that the assessee had imported babool wood, punch and round pack, etc., from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh for its resale in Madhya Pradesh. It has further been claimed by the petitioner that although authorities of the Commercial Tax Department conducted inspection at its business premises, but no material was found, proving the third party information. But, the scrutiny officer who conducted the inspection at the premises of the petitioner suggested an assessment against the petitioner on the basis of the third party information. The petitioner maintains that during the assessment proceedings, the aforesaid stand taken by the Department was denied by it and it even claimed a right of cross-examination of the witnesses, on the basis of whose statements the assessment proceedings were being conducted. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid opportunity was not granted to it. However, an assessment order was passed by the assessing authority, which was even challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision petition. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated March 4, 2002. Against the assessment order and the order passed in revision petition, the petitioner approached this court through a writ petition No. 810 of 2002. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated March 4, 2002. Against the assessment order and the order passed in revision petition, the petitioner approached this court through a writ petition No. 810 of 2002. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on July 17, 2002 (Haji Abdul Hussain T. Malu Bhai v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax). Against the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner filed a Letters Patent Appeal No. 290 of 2002. During the pendency of the aforesaid letters patent appeal, the petitioner also claimed to have approached the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, by way of an application under section 62(2) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), for exercise of its suo motu powers and requested the Commissioner to issue some necessary directions. The Division Bench took note of the filing of the revision petition and consequently chose to dispose of L.P.A. No. 290 of 2002 vide order dated November 13, 2002 and directions were issued to the Commissioner to decide the second revision petition filed by the petitioner. It has been stated by the petitioner that in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax examined the matter and passed an order dated October 28, 2005 directing the assessing authority to examine the matter afresh. A copy of the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, on October 28, 2005, has been appended as annexure P5 with the present petition. In consequence to the directions issued by the Additional Commissioner, fresh assessment proceedings were conducted and vide order dated January 27, 2007, a fresh assessment order was passed, which was almost identical to the earlier order of assessment passed originally. A copy of the aforesaid assessment order dated January 27, 2007 has been appended as annexure P6 with the present petition. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved against the assessment order, filed a first appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, who dismissed the appeal vide order dated March 31, 2008 (annexure P7). The petitioner still felt aggrieved and approached the revisional authority by filing a revision petition against the original assessment order as well as the appellate order. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved against the assessment order, filed a first appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, who dismissed the appeal vide order dated March 31, 2008 (annexure P7). The petitioner still felt aggrieved and approached the revisional authority by filing a revision petition against the original assessment order as well as the appellate order. The aforesaid revision petition is stated to be pending before the Commissioner of Commercial Tax and has not been decided so far. A copy of the memo of grounds of revision petition has been appended as annexure P8 with the present petition. However it appears that during pendency of the assessment proceedings, simultaneous proceedings under section 69 of the Act were also initiated for imposition of penalty upon the petitioner. An order dated April 4, 2002 was passed by the assessing authority imposing a penalty upon the petitioner. The aforesaid penalty order has been appended as annexure P9 with the present petition. Against the order, annexure P9, the petitioner appears to have preferred a revision petition. The aforesaid revision petition was heard by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, who, vide an order dated February 11, 2003, set aside the penalty order and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh determination. Various observations were made by the revisional authority with regard to the pendency of the controversy before the High Court. The assessing authority was directed to take note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case. In terms of the directions issued by the revisional authority, a fresh order of imposing penalty was passed by the assessing authority on September 27, 2007, annexure P10. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner, as originally, has been maintained. Once again, the petitioner felt aggrieved against the imposition of penalty upon it and filed a revision petition under section 62 of the Act. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was again taken up for consideration by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax Department, but the same has been rejected vide order dated June 16, 2008, primarily on the ground that the assessment order originally framed against the petitioner had been confirmed by the appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax vide order dated March 31, 2008, in appeal. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this court through the present petition. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this court through the present petition. Orders of imposition of penalty, annexure P9 and revisional order dated June 16, 2008, annexure P1 have been challenged by the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner has challenged the order of attachment, annexure P21, dated June 11, 2008, whereby the property of the petitioner has been ordered to be attached for effecting recovery of the penalty amount. The imposition of penalty and dismissal of the revision petition by the revisional authority have been challenged by the petitioner on factual and legal grounds as well. Besides raising factual pleas, it has been maintained that the imposition of penalty against the petitioner, at this stage, when even the assessment order had not attained finality, since the revision petition against the said assessment order was yet pending before the revisional authority, therefore, the imposition of penalty was wholly uncalled for and unjustified. The claim made by the petitioner has been contested by the respondents by filing a detailed reply. In the reply, the facts with regard to the original assessment orders, the appellate orders, the remand orders and the pendency of the assessment proceedings in revision petition before the revisional authority are not disputed. However, it has been maintained by the respondents that the assessment proceedings under section 27 of the Act are independent proceedings and proceedings for penalty which are initiated under section 69 of the Act are not affected in any manner, by the pendency of the revision petition against the original assessment order. On the merits of the controversy also, the respondents have maintained that there was sufficient material with the Department for passing the assessment order and in any case, since there was a violation and contravention of the provisions by the assessee, therefore, the penalty proceedings had been appropriately initiated under section 69 of the Act. I have heard Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Government counsel for the respondents at some length and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. During the course of arguments also, the learned counsel for the parties have reiterated the pleas raised by the parties in their respective pleadings. During the course of arguments also, the learned counsel for the parties have reiterated the pleas raised by the parties in their respective pleadings. As noticed above, it is apparent that as of date, the assessment order passed against the petitioner, though upheld by the appellate authority the revision petition against the same is yet pending. In these circumstances, it cannot be suggested, as sought to be maintained by the Department, that the assessment order has attained finality. In fact, if the suggestion offered by the respondents qua the finality of the assessment order was to be accepted, then it would mean that the revision petition filed by the assessee - firm is wholly redundant and without any meaning. The aforesaid view cannot be taken by this court. The revisional powers available to a revisional authority authorize the authority to set aside the appellate as well as the revisional order, if a case for that course is made out by the assessee. The revisional authority may choose not to interfere in the matter. However, that would be a complete discretion and judicial adjudication by the revisional authority. This court would not comment on the merits of the controversy as far as merits of the revision petition are concerned. However, it remains undisputed that in case the revision petition filed by the petitioner were to be accepted, then it would knock the very basis for imposition of penalty against the assessee - firm. In these circumstances, it would be only appropriate that the penalty proceedings as well as the assessment proceedings are heard jointly at the same time. The aforesaid course would also help in avoiding conflicting views in the matter of adjudication of assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings. Consequently I deem it appropriate to quash the revisional order, annexure P1, passed in penalty proceedings. The revision petition filed by the petitioner - firm is revived to its original number and it is directed that the aforesaid revision petition shall be heard by the same authority, where the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the assessment proceedings is stated to be pending. The revision petition filed by the petitioner - firm is revived to its original number and it is directed that the aforesaid revision petition shall be heard by the same authority, where the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the assessment proceedings is stated to be pending. The court is conscious of the fact that although the revision petition, against the assessment proceedings is pending before the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, the revision petition filed by the assessee - firm against the penalty order has been disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, but with a view to avoid conflicting views, it would be appropriate if even the revision petition filed in the penalty proceedings is taken up for hearing by the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, as the case may be. As a consequence of quashing of the revisional order, the attachment order, annexure P2 passed against the petitioner shall also stand quashed. The revisional authority Commissioner/Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax (as the case may be) is directed to decide the two proceedings (assessment/penalty proceedings) at the same time, but through separate orders, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax - respondent No. 2 on September 22, 2008. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax shall forward the record of the case to the concerned revisional authority (Commissioner/Additional Commissioner) where the revision petitions, against the assessment proceedings, are pending between the parties. C.C. as per Rules.