JUDGMENT B. P. Das, J. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of assessment dated January 5, 2007 passed by the O.P. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela II Circle, under section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 for the period 2003-04 (annexure 1) on the ground that the same having been passed beyond the period of limitation is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law and, therefore, liable to be quashed. As it appears, the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and production of RCC hume pipes in its factory located at Kalunga, Rourkela. In response to the notice issued under section 12(4) of the OST Act for the year 2003-04, the petitioner produced the books of accounts maintained by it in the course of business as well as the declaration forms but the Sales Tax Officer passed the order of the assessment making addition to the gross taxable turnover (GTO) and taxable turnover (TTO) returned on account of transportation charges and further addition was made on account of alleged contravention of form ID 92. In the aforesaid assessment order annexed as annexure 1, the tax payable by the petitioner was quantified at Rs. 81,139. Mr. Pati submits that the assessment order served on the petitioner reveals that the date of the assessment order was originally indicated, as December 6, 2006 and after scoring through the same, another date, i.e., January 5, 2007 has been written by hand. The assessment order further reveals that the same was dispatched on October 15, 2007 but it was served on the petitioner on January 8, 2008. According to Mr. Pati, since the second proviso to section 12(7) of the OST Act provides that assessment is to be completed within a period of three years, the Sales Tax Officer was obliged to pass the order of assessment for the impugned period 2003-04 by March 31, 2007 and as the impugned assessment order has not been passed within the prescribed statutory period, the entire order is illegal and is liable to be quashed. In the absence of a counter-affidavit from the Revenue, we called for the relevant records and the same were produced before this court on July 23, 2009. In the absence of a counter-affidavit from the Revenue, we called for the relevant records and the same were produced before this court on July 23, 2009. In the order passed on July 23, 2009, on perusing the records, this court observed that it was the laches on the part of the assessing officer and because of such laches, advantage is taken by the assessee, which may lead to quashing of the assessment order and causing loss of revenue to the State Exchequer. In the said order this court also directed the Sales Tax Officer, who has passed the impugned order of assessment, i.e., Sri B. K. Panigrahi, to appear in person before this court on August 11, 2009. Now on a bare perusal of the order-sheets of the case record, we find that the order-sheets were maintained on plain papers. The orders passed by the assessing officer are extracted hereunder : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "July 12, 2004 Issue notice under section 12(4) of the OST Act 47 fixing to dated July 26, 2004. Sd./- STO July 26, 2004 Case is adjourned to dated August 13, 2004. Sd./- STO August 13, 2004 Case is adjourned to dated August 31, 2004. Sd./- STO January 15, Issue intimation fixing date to dated January 31, 2005. 2005 Sd./- STO December 19, Issue intimation fixing date to dated December 23, 2005. 2005 Sd./- STO January 5, 2007 Seen the assessment record of the dealer. Advocate filed Hazira along with detail statement of the account on date December 23, 2005 for assessment for the year 2003-04 under the OST Act. It has been examined on May 7, 2007 and discussed details in A.O. Issue assessment order and demand notice for Rs. 81,139. As such it has also been examined on ET. A detailed discussion has been made in assessment order. Issue assessment order and demand notice for Rs. 17,762. Sd./- STO" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The above order-sheets prima facie show that the same were maintained in a most irregular manner. So far as the assessment order passed in form IX is concerned, we find that the date "December 6, 2006" indicated therein has been scored through and another date, i.e., January 5, 2007 has been written by hand. 17,762. Sd./- STO" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The above order-sheets prima facie show that the same were maintained in a most irregular manner. So far as the assessment order passed in form IX is concerned, we find that the date "December 6, 2006" indicated therein has been scored through and another date, i.e., January 5, 2007 has been written by hand. The Sales Tax Officer, who passed the impugned order of assessment in annexure 1, namely, Sri B. K. Panigrahi appeared in person on August 11, 2009 pursuant to this court's order dated July 23, 2009 and took a plea that the order of assessment was passed on March 31, 2007. Since the Department took a prevaricating stand at different points of time and the conduct of the Sales Tax Officer was also suspicious because from the order of assessment (annexure 1) it is evident that the same was dispatched to the petitioner on October 15, 2007 and the assessee received the said order on January 8, 2008. By order dated August 11, 2009, we directed Sri Panigrahi to file an affidavit on the aforesaid statement. On September 2, 2009 when this matter was listed, learned counsel for the Revenue wanted time to file the affidavit as required by the order dated August 11, 2009 but learned counsel for the petitioner made an allegation that the petitioner had neither appeared before Sri Panigrahi nor had he produced the books of accounts before him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the said books of accounts were examined by the predecessor of Sri Panigrahi, the order of assessment passed by Shri Panigrahi was illegal, as Shri Panigrahi has never perused the said books of accounts. Therefore, we directed Sri Panigrahi, Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela II Circle, and his predecessor, Sri D. Murmu, to appear in person before this court on September 14, 2009 and in terms of that order. Both the officers appeared before this court on September 14, 2009 and filed their affidavits. That apart, Shri Panigrahi also filed a reply to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. Both the officers appeared before this court on September 14, 2009 and filed their affidavits. That apart, Shri Panigrahi also filed a reply to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit dated September 13, 2009 filed by Sri B. K. Panigrahi in reply to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that he had issued notice to the petitioner for production of books of accounts for the year 2003-04 fixing the date to December 6, 2006 and the petitioner had received the said notice on December 1, 2006. The notice and the receipt showing acknowledgement of notice have been annexed as annexures C/l and C/2. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared on January 5, 2007 for assessment for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 along with advocate Sri D. Pati and on that day the statement of the petitioner for the year 2004-05 was recorded and the purchase register was verified. Mr. Pati, however, now submits that so far as the assessment for the year 2003-04 is concerned, the petitioner had not produced any books of accounts. He further submits that no notice, as stated above, was received by the petitioner for the year 2003-04 and the signature on the receipt of the notice does not belong to any one of the petitioner - firm. In the affidavit dated September 1, 2009 filed by Sri Panigrahi on September 14, 2009 the deponent has also taken a stand that due to bona fide official delay, the assessment order and demand notice were issued for service by the bench clerk through the office peon on October 15, 2007 and the same were served on the petitioner on January 8, 2008. According to Sri Panigrahi, the order of assessment was passed on January 5, 2007. If we accept the plea of the Revenue that the order of assessment was passed on January 5, 2007, we find that the same was issued to the petitioner on October 15, 2007, i.e., ten months after passing of the order and the order was served on the petitioner on January 8, 2008, i.e., three months after it was issued. The learned counsel for the Revenue relies upon the relevant entries of the process register annexed as annexure E to the reply affidavit of Sri Panigrahi. The learned counsel for the Revenue relies upon the relevant entries of the process register annexed as annexure E to the reply affidavit of Sri Panigrahi. We do not find any explanation by Sri B. K. Panigrahi as to why and under what circumstances, the assessment order was typed in the computer putting the date as December 6, 2006, which was scored through and the date, i.e., January 5, 2007 was mentioned by hand. Today, in terms of the order of this court dated September 14, 2009, Sri Dasmat Murmu, predecessor-in-office of Sri B. K. Panigrahi, appears and files an affidavit before this court. In paragraphs 1 and 3 of the said affidavit it is stated as follows : "1. That I was working as the Sales Tax Officer, Ward B, Rourkela II Circle from August 18, 2005 to July 27, 2006. I was the assessing officer for the petitioner for the year 2003-04. I had taken up the assessment for that year and had verified the books of accounts of the dealer on December 23, 2005. But the assessment could not be completed during my tenure. 3. That I was maintaining the order-sheets of all the assessment records in normal course. As such, I had also maintained the order-sheet of the assessment of the petitioner for the year 2003-04 as well up to date. But at present I could not find those order-sheets in the assessment record. The assessment records are kept in the custody of the assessment clerk of the respective wards." So from the aforesaid affidavit, it appears that Sri Murmu had maintained all the order-sheets and the books of accounts produced before him, but he could not complete the assessment. We are startled to see that when one officer says regularly the order-sheets have been maintained by him, in fact, there is no regular order-sheet in the record. As we have indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, the order-sheet is maintained in a plain paper and most irregularly. The fact whether the assessment order was passed before expiry of the period of limitation is also shrouded with doubt, as it is observed that there is interpolation in the date of order and no reasonable plea has been taken regarding the delay in issuance of the order as well as the notice of demand. The fact whether the assessment order was passed before expiry of the period of limitation is also shrouded with doubt, as it is observed that there is interpolation in the date of order and no reasonable plea has been taken regarding the delay in issuance of the order as well as the notice of demand. Even though a plea has been taken by Sri Panigrahi that on the same date, i.e., January 5, 2007, the orders for the year 2003-04 as well as 2004-05 were passed, they were issued on October 15, 2007 and the assessee received the same on January 8, 2008. We find that there is no satisfactory explanation regarding the delay in service of the order of assessment upon the assessee - petitioner. This aspect is required to be probed by an officer not below the rank of an Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax and accordingly, we so direct. So our conclusion is that there is lack of regularity in maintaining the order-sheets, as the same have not been maintained in the prescribed form of the Government. The order-sheets maintained in plain papers can be easily replaced. In this case, if we look at the averments made in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed by Sri Murmu as well as the records of the Revenue and accept the statement of Sri Murmu, then we have to believe that the order-sheets might have been replaced. Taking into account the entire factual matrix of the case, as there are disputed questions of fact, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner should approach the first appellate authority. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the first appellate authority in appeal. If the petitioner files the first appeal before the first appellate authority within one month from today along with an application for condonation of delay, the first appellate authority after condoning the delay shall entertain the appeal and dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of such filing. Till the first appeal is concluded, realisation of the demanded tax shall remain stayed. Before parting with this case, we direct the State Government as well as the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, to issue a notification to the following effect : (1) Instructing all the assessing officers to use the Government printed order-sheet forms from December 1, 2009. Till the first appeal is concluded, realisation of the demanded tax shall remain stayed. Before parting with this case, we direct the State Government as well as the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, to issue a notification to the following effect : (1) Instructing all the assessing officers to use the Government printed order-sheet forms from December 1, 2009. (2) The order of assessment and the demand notice shall be issued to the dealers by registered post with A.D.; and (3) The record shall be maintained up to date and when the dealer or his authorised representative appears before the assessing authority or any other appellate authority, his signature shall be taken on the body of the order-sheet on the date of his appearance. As we have pointed out in the earlier paragraphs, that the matter requires a thorough probe by an officer not below the rank of an Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the persons responsible for replacing the order-sheets and scoring through the date of the assessment order should be identified and appropriate action should be taken against them. The records produced today be returned to the learned counsel for the Revenue. The original order of assessment be returned to the petitioner on being substituted by attested photocopy thereof. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Let a free copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned counsel for the Revenue. C. R. DASH, J. - I agree.