Judgment : 1. Let affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the records. 2. Leave is granted to the petitioner to correct the cause title of the writ petition in course of this day. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner stated to be carrying on business under the trade name and style of M/s. Kemtek India, has challenged the order dated 5th July, 2006 passed in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Dharmatala Circle, the respondent No.3 and the order dated 24th January, 2008 passed in revision by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kolkata, the respondent No.1, on several grounds. It has been submitted that since there is no negation of the grounds which have been mentioned in the application for revision the order dated 24th January, 2008 passed ex parte in revision was not to the best of his judgment as stipulated under proviso to Rule 247 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. Moreover, order in revision was passed ignoring the written prayer for adjournment which was furnished on 22nd January, 2008 as evident from page 30 of the writ petition. 4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the allegation of violation of natural justice is not correct as the petitioner was allowed ten adjournments as is evident from the order passed by the respondent No.3. Moreover, it is evident from the order passed in revision that the petitioner was granted live adjournments. Further, though there is no scope for filing of application of restoration for restoring the order passed on 24th January, 2008 in revision, yet such an application was filed only to delay the matter. 5. In my view, the point to be considered is whether the impugned order dated 24th January, 2008 passed in revision by the respondent No.1 can be said to be the best of his judgment. In order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to set out the relevant portion of the order dated 24th January, 2008 passed in revision which is as under : "The instant revision petitions were filed against the appellate orders passed by ACCT/Dharmatala Circle on 05.07.2006 under both the Acts stated above. Both the petitions are taken together for disposal for the sake of convenience and brevity. None appeared, before me on 24.01.2008 when the case was fixed for hearing. Both the petitions are taken together for disposal for the sake of convenience and brevity. None appeared, before me on 24.01.2008 when the case was fixed for hearing. The dealer was granted five adjournments and on all dates the petitioner failed to appear to represent the case. The dealer also failed to appear before the appellate authority to represent his case. In the instant case the dealer was given reasonable opportunity of being heard. I am convinced that no further adjournment can ensure the petitioner's presence. I, therefore, proceed to dispose off revision petition ex parte to the best of my judgment. I perused grounds of revision and checked records in file. In absence of any documents to the contrary I failed to accept grounds of revision. As a result, the appellate orders passed by ld. ACCT/Dharmatala Circle under both the Acts were confirmed." 6. I find that in the absence of any document to the contrary the revisional authority did not accept the grounds of revision and had confirmed the orders passed by the lower authorities. May be there were no documents to the contrary but in the order he should have mentioned the reasons for negating the grounds contained in the application for revision after considering the documents on record to make it a well considered judgment. That is the spirit of the proviso to Rule 247 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rule, 1995. Therefore, the order dated 24th January, 2008 passed in revision cannot be sustained and is, thus, set aside and quashed. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the matter be heard by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kolkata, the respondent No.1, on 23rd March, 2009 in between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. when the petitioner or his representative is at liberty to attend. Since this order is passed in presence of the learned Advocates for the parties, no further notice for hearing need be served. If the petitioner or his representative fails to appear in the hearing, the revisional authority is at liberty to pass orders in accordance with Rule 247 of the Rules. 7. 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. 1. 8. 7. 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. 1. 8. Since the respondents were not called upon to file affidavits controverting the allegations made in the writ petition, the allegations are deemed not to have been admitted by them. 9. There will be no order as to costs. 10. Let urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnised to the appearing parties of priority basis. Soumitra Pal, J. : Writ petition allowed.