JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - This order shall dispose of four writ petitions being W.P. No. 7568 of 2007, W.P. No. 7569 of 2007, W.P. No. 7570 of 2007 and W.P. No. 7572 of 2007. All the writ petitions have been filed raising an identical controversy by the two different assessees. Identical arguments have been raised before me. Whereas two writ petitions being W.P. No. 7568 of 2007 and W.P. No. 7570 of 2007 pertain to a dispute with regard to the assessment of the commercial tax qua the assessees. However, two writ petitions being W.P. No. 7569 of 2007 and W.P. No. 7572 of 2007 pertain to assessment of the entry tax qua the said assessees. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from W.P. No. 7568 of 2007. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm owned by Prince Goyal. The petitioner - firm had obtained a temporary registration from Commercial Tax Department, Sendhwa, with a view to establish a manufacturing unit at Nimrani for manufacture of thinner, distemper, oil paint, chemical, etc. The aforesaid registration remained operative from June 26, 1999 till June 29, 2000, but according to the petitioner, no manufacturing activity could be started in the said unit and ultimately the temporary registration issued to the petitioner was terminated by the department. On August 26, 2000, an inspection was conducted at the factory premises of the petitioner - firm as also on the residential premises of its proprietor. The petitioner maintains that no incriminating material was found in the said inspection. It has been maintained in the petitions that although no incriminating material was found, but still the scrutiny officer on the basis of some information received from oil companies, maintained that certain purchases of High Speed Diesel Oil (HSD) had been made by the petitioner - firm from oil companies and the aforesaid HSD had been sold correspondingly in the State of Madhya Pradesh. This inference was maintained on the basis of some delivery notes shown to have been obtained by someone in the name of the petitioner - firm. The assessment of commercial tax for the period April 1, 1999 till March 31, 2000 was completed by the assessing officer vide an order dated June 15, 2001, on the basis of the report submitted by the scrutiny officer. The assessment of commercial tax for the period April 1, 1999 till March 31, 2000 was completed by the assessing officer vide an order dated June 15, 2001, on the basis of the report submitted by the scrutiny officer. On the basis of concealment with regard to the aforesaid alleged sales, the assessing officer also levied the penalty. Copy of the assessment order has been appended as annexure P-1 with the present petition. The petitioner - firm challenged the aforesaid assessment order by way of a revision petition. It was maintained that no opportunity of hearing had been provided to the firm. An affidavit was also filed by the assessee - firm denying the allegations regarding clandestine purchases from oil company. The revision petition filed by the assessee - firm was allowed and the assessment order was set aside vide an order dated December 19, 2002. The revisional order has been appended as annexure P-6 with the present petition. The matter was remanded back to the assessing authority. After remand, the matter was reconsidered by the assessing officer, but a fresh assessment order was passed on December 22, 2004. Identical assessment was made, as was originally made vide order dated June 15, 2001. The order dated December 22, 2004 has been appended as annexure P-7 with the present petition. It has been maintained by the petitioner - firm that even the fresh order had been passed ex parte and behind the back of the petitioner - firm, inasmuch as, even though the proprietor of the petitioner - firm was a resident of Bombay, all communications were sent at Sendhwa. A separate order imposing penalty was also passed on June 15, 2006. The aforesaid penalty order was passed only on the basis of the findings recorded in the assessment proceedings. The petitioner - firm preferred separate revision petitions against the assessment order as well as against the order imposing the penalty. The aforesaid revision petitions have been disposed of by the revisional authority through a common order dated September 24, 2007. The aforesaid penalty order was passed only on the basis of the findings recorded in the assessment proceedings. The petitioner - firm preferred separate revision petitions against the assessment order as well as against the order imposing the penalty. The aforesaid revision petitions have been disposed of by the revisional authority through a common order dated September 24, 2007. Whereas imposition of penalty upon the petitioner - firm has been set aside on the ground that there is no evidence with the department regarding import of goods to the State of M.P. and their corresponding sale in the State, however, while upholding the assessment order, the revisional authority has accepted the assessment made by the assessing authority and has held that there has been concealment of sales. The revisional order has been appended as annexure P-10 and is a subject-matter of challenge with regard to the rejection of the revision petition qua the assessment. I have heard Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner - firm and Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Government counsel, for the respondents and with their assistance, have also gone through the record of the case. Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner - firm, has referred to the observations made by the revisional authority, whereby it has been held that there was no material with the department regarding import of goods by the assessee to the State of M.P. and the corresponding sale of the said goods in the State and on that basis, the penalty imposed by the assessing authority has been set aside, but even in the face of the said findings, the revisional authority has upheld the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority and has held that there was a sale of goods which had been imported from outside of the State by the petitioner - firm. The learned counsel maintains that various observations made by the revisional authority were in fact self-contradictory and no material whatsoever, had ever been supplied by the department to the assessee - firm to show that there was any such sale of goods imported from outside the State. I have duly considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner - firm and have also gone through various observations made by the revisional authority in its impugned order. I have duly considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner - firm and have also gone through various observations made by the revisional authority in its impugned order. The primary grievance raised on behalf of the assessee - firm is that there is no evidence with the department to hold that any goods had been imported by the assessee - firm from outside the State and the said goods had been sold in the State. As a matter of fact, the said plea raised on behalf of the assessee - firm had even found favour with the revisional authority, when it had chosen to accept the said plea for setting aside the penalty. If that were so the aforesaid plea qua the assessment of tax should have also been taken into consideration and was liable to be accepted. Another plea raised by the assessee - firm is that the assessment order had been passed behind the back of the petitioner - firm without there being any due service upon it. In these circumstances, without commenting any further on merits of the controversy, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the assessing authority for fresh determination with regard to the assessment of the tax only, since the order of penalty passed originally by the assessing authority has already been set aside. Consequently, the present petitions are allowed. The orders passed by the revisional authority as well as the assessing authority, qua the assessment of tax are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the assessing authority for re-determination on the question of tax only in the fresh proceedings. C.C. as per rules.