JUDGMENT R. Islam for the respondent. The Court : In this writ petition, the petitioner, Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government of India Enterprise and a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, has challenged the order dated 21st October, 2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, respondent No. 3, in revision for the issue in question for the period for four quarters ending on 31st March, 2001, on the ground that though an application for adjournment was filed before the revisional authority which was duly received, the Authority without considering the application had passed an order dismissing the revision petition on merits. 2. The matter was taken up for hearing on 24th February, 2009 when on the prayer of Mr. R. Islam, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, it was adjourned to enable him to obtain instruction. Today, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents that in spite of his best efforts no instruction could be received. 3. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that since an application for adjournment was filed, the Revisional Authority ought to have considered the application and should not have passed order on merits. Though application for adjournment is on record, yet order impugned has been passed recording that there was no petition for adjournment. In support of his submission, Mr. Chakraborty has relied on a judgement passed in S.K. Gupta & Anr. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi & Ors., reported in 61 Sales Tax Cases 20(Delhi) wherein it has been held that an applicant has a right to have his application for adjournment considered. 4. In my view, in a proceeding a petitioner is entitled to pray for adjournment by filing an application containing reasons. Though the grant of adjournment is within the discretionary power of the authority, the petitioner has a right to have his application considered. From a perusal of annexure at page 35 of the writ petition, I find that adjournment petition was filed on 20th October, 2008. However, the Revisional Authority in its order dated 21st October, 2008 has recorded that on 20th October, 2008 "none appeared and no petition for adjournment filed". Therefore, evidently such recording in the order dated 21st October, 2008 is incorrect. It also reveals that there was non-application of mind. However, the Revisional Authority in its order dated 21st October, 2008 has recorded that on 20th October, 2008 "none appeared and no petition for adjournment filed". Therefore, evidently such recording in the order dated 21st October, 2008 is incorrect. It also reveals that there was non-application of mind. The judgement passed in S.K. Gupta (supra) supports the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 21st October, 2008 cannot be sustained and is, thus, set aside and quashed. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. The Revisional Authority is directed to take up the revision petition within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and shall pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner without granting any adjournment. However, I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case and all points are left open to be dealt with by the respondent No. 3. 5. As prayed for, this order shall not prevent the petitioner to pray for settlement under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 1999. 6. Since the respondents were not called upon to file affidavits controverting the allegations made in the writ petition, the allegations contained therein are deemed not to have been admitted by them. 7. No order as to costs. 8. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this order on the usual undertakings. Soumitra Pal, J. : Appeal allowed.