JUDGMENT VINEY MITTAL, J. - This order shall dispose of 14 writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 3381 to 3384 and 4098 of 2007, W.P. Nos. 4065 to 4069 and 4147 to 4150 of 2008, as the controversy involved in all these cases are identical, and identical arguments have been addressed before me by the learned counsel for the parties. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from W.P. No. 3381 of 2007. The petitioner, Milan Supari Stores, is a partnership firm engaged in the purchase and sale of supari, elaichi, khopra, etc. The controversy in question relates to the reassessment orders passed by the sales tax authorities pertaining to the period April 14, 1982 to March 31, 1983. The order dated January 13, 2006 passed by way of reassessment by the assessing authority (Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax) has been confirmed by the revisional authority vide order dated January 31, 2007. For the assessment year in question, the assessing authority completed the assessment proceedings of sales tax vide order dated July 22, 1985. The tax, as assessed by the assessing authority, was duly paid by the assessee. However, the aforesaid assessment was sought to be reopened under section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed) (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") along with the assessments for the years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. On the receipt of the notice of reassessment, the petitioner - firm approached this court through a writ petition, which was disposed of vide order dated May 5, 1994 (Milan Supari Stores v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1994] 95 STC 165). The court directed the assessing authority to determine the question of jurisdiction, at the first instance, before proceeding any further with the reassessment proceedings. In view of the directions issued by the court an order dated March 27, 1996 was passed by the assessing authority. The question of jurisdiction was decided against the assessee. The aforesaid order was again challenged by the petitioner - firm again by filing writ petition before this court. However, it failed in this attempt and the writ petition filed by the petitioner - firm was dismissed (Milan Supari Stores v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax [1997] 107 STC 407 (MP)). The question of jurisdiction was decided against the assessee. The aforesaid order was again challenged by the petitioner - firm again by filing writ petition before this court. However, it failed in this attempt and the writ petition filed by the petitioner - firm was dismissed (Milan Supari Stores v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax [1997] 107 STC 407 (MP)). The order passed by the learned single judge was even affirmed (Milan Supari Stores v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax [1998] 109 STC 58 (MP)) in appeal, when the letters patent appeal filed by the petitioner - firm was also dismissed. After the determination of the earlier litigation, reassessment proceedings commenced against the assessee - firm. In the aforesaid proceedings, the assessee - firm prayed for supply of the copies of adverse material, which had been collected by the Department behind its back, and on the basis of which assessment proceedings were ordered to be reopened. The assessee - firm also made a request for cross-examination of such witnesses, on the basis of whose statements, the reassessment proceedings had been initiated. However, the assessing authority passed an order dated December 29, 1997 and held that there was absolutely no necessity to supply any material to the assessee - firm, nor it was required to provide an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Department. Accordingly, a reassessment order was passed. A copy of the reassessment order dated December 29, 1997 has been appended as annexure P1 with the present petition. The assessee - firm felt aggrieved against the order, annexure P1, and preferred a revision petition. The reassessment order was challenged on various grounds. One of the primary grounds of challenge was that the reassessment order was barred by limitation. The aforesaid objection of limitation was accepted by the revisional authority and vide order dated November 10, 1988, the revision petition filed by the assessee/firm was allowed. Reassessment proceedings were held to be barred by limitation. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax challenged the revisional order by filing an appeal under section 39(5) of the Act before the Board of Revenue. The aforesaid appeal filed by the Commissioner was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated October 29, 2002 and the revisional order dated November 10, 1998, passed by the Additional Commissioners, was set aside. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax challenged the revisional order by filing an appeal under section 39(5) of the Act before the Board of Revenue. The aforesaid appeal filed by the Commissioner was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated October 29, 2002 and the revisional order dated November 10, 1998, passed by the Additional Commissioners, was set aside. It is also on record that a writ petition was filed by the assessee - firm against the aforesaid order passed by the Board of Revenue, but the same was dismissed by a learned single judge vide order dated December 19, 2002, being W.P. No. 1907 of 2002 (Milan Supari Stores v. Board of Revenue). It is also common case between the parties that the L.P.A. filed against the order of the learned single judge was also dismissed. Since the order of the Additional Commissioner deciding the question of limitation as a preliminary issue was set aside by the Board of Revenue, therefore the revision petition filed by the assessee - firm against the order of the assessing authority was taken up for hearing once again, on the merits of the controversy. During the course of proceedings before the revisional authority, the assessee - firm again reasserted the plea for supplying of the documentary evidence used by the Department against it and also for providing an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon by the Department for reopening the assessment proceedings. In fact, one of the main grounds of challenge against the assessment order was the non-supply of the said documentary evidence to it and also non-grant of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The revisional authority, after taking into consideration the aforesaid request made by the assessee - firm, thought it appropriate to order supplying of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Department, on the basis of which the assessment proceedings had been reopened. It was also thought appropriate to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee - firm, of such witnesses, whose statements were recorded behind the back of the assessee - firm and had been relied upon by the Department. Consequently, vide an order dated August 22, 2003, the revision petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the assessing authority to provide the aforesaid opportunity and also supply the requisite material. Consequently, vide an order dated August 22, 2003, the revision petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the assessing authority to provide the aforesaid opportunity and also supply the requisite material. The order of the revisional authority has been appended as annexure P7 with the present petition. After remand, a fresh order of reassessment was passed by the assessing authority vide order dated January 13, 2006. The aforesaid order has been appended as annexure P11 with the present petition. During the course of fresh proceedings after remand, the assessee - firm again reiterated the request made by it, earlier before the assessing authority and later before the revisional authority, and also reasserted that the aforesaid request had in fact been accepted in principle by the revisional authority and it was only on the basis of non-supply of the material and non-grant of opportunity of cross-examination that the matter had been remanded back. Consequently, the petitioner - firm prayed that before proceeding any further in the reassessment proceedings, the requisite material be supplied by the assessing authority and opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, as aforesaid, be also granted. Strangely, the aforesaid request for cross-examination was again turned down by the assessing authority, by maintaining that no such opportunity was needed. According to the assessee - firm, some documents, though not complete material, were supplied by the assessing authority. The assessee - firm filed a revision petition before the revisional authority by challenging the reassessment order dated January 13, 2006 (annexure P11). Identical grounds were again reiterated, besides challenging the reassessment order on the merits of the controversy. During the course of revisional proceedings, the revisional authority thought it appropriate to supply all the material, which was demanded by the assessee - firm. The request made by the assessee - firm for cross-examination of the witnesses was also accepted and consequently, summons were issued to 15 witnesses to appear before the revisional authority, so that an opportunity for cross-examination could be provided to the assessee - firm. However, it appears from the record that although the aforesaid summons were duly served on the witnesses, none of the witnesses had chosen to appear. However, it appears from the record that although the aforesaid summons were duly served on the witnesses, none of the witnesses had chosen to appear. On account of non-appearance of the said witnesses, the revisional authority thought it appropriate to continue with the proceedings in the revision petition and by passing an order dated January 31, 2007, the assessment order passed by the assessing authority was affirmed. The revision petition filed by the assessee - firm was dismissed. The revisional order has been appended as annexure P18 with the present petition. It is in these circumstances, that the assessee - firm has challenged the order, annexures P11 and P18. It has been claimed in the petition that the re-assessment order, as well as the revisional order, suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as, even in the earlier proceedings in the revision petition, the revisional authority had accepted the contention of the assessee - firm and had held that the material used against the assessee - firm, for reopening the assessment proceeding, was to be supplied to it and an opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were recorded behind the back of the assessee - firm, was also required to be granted. Still when the matter had been remanded back to the revisional authority, neither the assessing authority nor the revisional authority, while passing a fresh order, annexure P18, had adverted to the said request made by the assessee - firm. It has also been maintained that even while passing the order, annexure P18, it is apparent that the revisional authority had once again accepted the request made by the assessee - firm and accordingly issued summons to 15 witnesses, for providing an opportunity to cross-examine them at the hands of the assessee - firm, but even when the said witnesses had chosen not to appear after the service of the said summons, the proceedings were continued and the statements of the said witnesses recorded behind the back of the assessee - firm had been used against it. The claim made by the assessee - firm has been contested by the Department. As a matter of fact, a reply has been filed in W.P. No. 4098 of 2007, which is one of the writ petitions pertaining to the assessment year 1986-87. The claim made by the assessee - firm has been contested by the Department. As a matter of fact, a reply has been filed in W.P. No. 4098 of 2007, which is one of the writ petitions pertaining to the assessment year 1986-87. However, the aforesaid reply filed in W.P. No. 4098 of 2007 has been specifically adopted by the learned Government counsel in all the writ petitions. In the reply, it has been maintained by the Department that due procedure, as per law, had been followed by the assessing authority as well as the revisional authority and there was sufficient compliance of section 55 of the Act, when summons to the said witnesses had been issued, but even after due service of the said summons, if the said witnesses had chosen not to appear, then it was in those circumstances that their statements recorded by the Department had been used against the assessee - firm. I have heard Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner 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, during the course of arguments, has reiterated all the pleas raised by the assessee - firm in the writ petition. It has been vehemently maintained by the learned counsel that once it had been conceded as a matter of principle by the revisional authority that the request made by the petitioner - firm for supplying of the documents and for grant of an opportunity to conduct the cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements had been recorded behind the back of the assessee - firm, was required to be accepted and even on earlier occasion, the revision petition filed by the assessee - firm was allowed and the matter had been remanded to the assessing authority with a direction to supply the aforesaid material and grant an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses, then non-grant of opportunity by the assessing authority and non-supplying of the entire material to the assessee - firm constituted a gross violation of the directions issued by the revisional authority, while remanding the matter and was even contrary to the principles of fair play, equity and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Shri Choudhary has argued that in the subsequent revision petition filed by the assessee - firm, the request made by it appears to have been accepted in principle by the revisional authority and summons were issued to 15 witnesses and even when the summons were duly served on the witnesses and the said witnesses had chosen not to appear, no further steps were taken by the revisional authority to secure the presence of the said witnesses. On the other hand, the non-appearance of the said witnesses was ignored and without affording an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee - firm, the statement of the said witnesses, recorded by the authorities behind the back of the assessee - firm, were duly used. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment in the case of Arsh Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh [1996] 81 ELT 276 (Trib - Delhi). On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel maintains that once the witnesses failed to appear for cross-examination, then not only the court of law is entitled to draw an adverse inference, but also statements made by such witnesses during investigation do not carry any conviction. On the other hand, Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Government counsel has refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Gajankush has maintained that the orders passed by the assessing authority, annexure P11, and order-in-revision passed by the revisional authority, annexure P18, are absolutely just and proper and duly conform to the provisions of law. Shri Gajankush also maintains that the revisional authority had not only issued summons to the witnesses, but as requested by the assessee - firm, had even provided additional summons to the assessee - firm to serve the said witnesses. However, when the said witnesses had not appeared, despite service upon them, then the departmental authorities were left with no other alternative except to proceed further in the matter. Shri Gajankush also maintains that as a matter of fact, once the assessee - firm had taken upon itself to serve the said witnesses, then no defence of non-appearance of the said witnesses could be taken by the assessee - firm. I have duly considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned orders. In my considered view, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. I have duly considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned orders. In my considered view, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is not in dispute that the witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the Department during the investigation, were not produced by the Department for cross-examination by the assessee - firm. Although, the Department maintains that the summons on the said witnesses had been served, but in spite of the service upon them, the said witnesses had chosen not to appear and therefore, the Department was within its right to proceed further with the matter, but the fact that the statements of the said witnesses were recorded during investigation, behind the back of the assessee - firm cannot be lost sight of. The assessee - firm was well within its rights to seek a right of cross-examination of the said witnesses, in case their statements were to be relied upon by the Department. Even if the said witnesses were duly served, hut had chosen to remain absent, despite service, the said fact cannot be used against the assessee - firm in any manner. On the other hand, the absence of the said witnesses was to be used against the Department itself and an adverse inference was required to be drawn against the Department for non-appearance of the witnesses. In any case, the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, recorded during investigation, by any stretch of imagination, could not be used against the assessee - firm, in the absence of their cross-examination. It is apparent that the aforesaid basic principle of fair play, based on principles of natural justice, has been completely lost sight of by the assessing authority as well as the revisional authority. It may also be relevant to notice that not only the statements of the aforesaid witnesses which were recorded during the investigation, but even the material collected from the aforesaid witnesses during their statements could not be used by the Department against the assessee - firm, in the absence of an opportunity of cross-examination by the assessee - firm of the aforesaid witnesses. At this stage, an argument advanced by Shri Umesh Gajankush may also be noticed. At this stage, an argument advanced by Shri Umesh Gajankush may also be noticed. Shri Gajankush has pointed out that even in case the witnesses could not be presented for cross-examination, that would not take away the right of the assessing authority to reopen the assessment proceedings, in accordance with law, by using such material as was sufficient to reopen the assessment proceedings. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid contention raised by the learned Government counsel that if besides the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation and the material collected from the said witnesses during the process of investigation, there is any other material with the departmental authorities which would be sufficient to reopen the assessment of the assessee - firm, then, of course, the departmental authorities would be well within their rights to proceed with the reassessment proceedings and pass a reassessment order, on the basis of the aforesaid material, but the aforesaid right of the assessing authority would not confer any jurisdiction upon him to use the statements of the witnesses and the material collected during investigation from such witnesses, who have not appeared for cross-examination by the assessee - firm, in any manner. At this stage, it may be noticed that an attempt was made by the revisional authority to offer an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee - firm by issuing summons to the witnesses and by supplying the material documents to the assessee - firm. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate that rather than remitting the matter to the assessing authority, it would be just and proper, if the matter is remanded to the revisional authority, so that revision petition filed by the assessee - firm can be re-adjudicated, in the light of the observations made by this court. Consequently, the order annexure P18 dated January 31, 2007 is set aside. The revision petition filed by the assessee - firm is restored to its original number. The revisional authority shall re-decide the aforesaid revision petition, in accordance with law, and by keeping in view the observations made by this court in the above discussion. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the revisional authority on August 25, 2008. C.C. as per rules.