JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner stated to be a partner of Eskay Steel Fabricators, a firm carrying on business and a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, has challenged several orders passed by the sales tax authorities particularly the order dated 26th December, 2007 passed in revision by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, the respondent No. 3 on the grounds that no opportunity was given to produce the books of accounts, order was passed ex parte, it cannot be said to be the best of his judgment as postulated under Rule 247 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, order is cryptic as it does not contain any reason and though order impugned was passed on 26th December, 2007 it was communicated belatedly on 21st March, 2009. 2. THE matter was moved on 15th July, 2009 when directions were issued, for filing of affidavits. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that no affidavits have been filed by the respondents controverting the assertions in the writ petition. In my view, in the absence of affidavits, the assertions made in the writ petition are deemed to be correct. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 3. IN order to decide the dispute, it is necessary to set out the orders from the order sheet which are as under: "05.4.07 Sri A. K. Gupta A/R appears today in connection with the revision case. Order is unserved. 26.12.07 Order is passed. Send the order to the dealer along with copies to respective offices form 'a'." The order impugned dated 26th December, 2007 is as under : "Present for the petitioner-Shri A.K. Gupta A/R Date of order. 26.12.2007. This revision is directed against the order of appeal dated 04.4.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Chowringhee Circle for the period 4 Q.E. 31.3.99. The Id. A/R appearing on behalf of the dealer has expressed his grievance against the order of appeal dated 04.4.2006 passed by the Acct/CH Circle. I have perused the order of appeal. I have also considered the submission of Id. A/R. It appears that the Id. The Id. A/R appearing on behalf of the dealer has expressed his grievance against the order of appeal dated 04.4.2006 passed by the Acct/CH Circle. I have perused the order of appeal. I have also considered the submission of Id. A/R. It appears that the Id. Acct/CH Circle has taken ex parte decision in his order due to non-appearance of the dealer on the final date of hearing of the appeal case in spite of the fact that ample opportunities have been allowed to the dealer. He has confirmed the order of the assessing authority since no books of accounts and other related documents are produced at the appellate stage. The Id. Advocate appeared before me at the revisional stage but he could not produce any related documents in support of his contention and grounds taken in the revision petition. IN view of this, I am constrained to alter the decision of the previous authorities. I do not want to interfere with the decision of the appellate authority. IN the result, the appellate order dt. 04.4.2006 passed by the ACCT/CH Circle is confirmed. The concerned authority shall act accordingly" 4. I find from the "order sheet" dated 5th April, 2007 representative of the petitioner had appeared. There was no direction upon the petitioner to produce the books of accounts. Though in the impugned order dated 26th December, 2007 the respondent No. 3 had recorded that the petitioner could not produce the related documents at the revisional stage, yet the said respondent did not think it proper to call for the books of accounts and related documents for adjudication. Though it is evident from the "order sheet" annexed to the writ petition that the representative was not present on 26th December, 2007, however, in the order impugned has been recorded that the representative of the petitioner was present, though same was not the case. Moreover, though the matter was heard on 5th April, 2007, order was passed on 26th December, 2007, that is, after about 8V2 months and it was communicated to the petitioner on 6th March, 2009 after about fifteen months. It shows the lackadaisical attitude of the authorities. On merit, 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 order passed by the appellate authority. It shows the lackadaisical attitude of the authorities. On merit, 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 order passed by the appellate authority. May be there were no documents to the contrary. Still, the respondent No. 3 in the order 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 Rules, 1995. Therefore, the order dated 26th December, 2007 passed in revision cannot be sustained and is, thus, set aside and quashed. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Let the revisional application be heard afresh by Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, the respondent No. 3 and a reasoned order be passed and communicated to the parties within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 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. 5. 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. 6. THERE will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the petitioner on priority basis.