Order All these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner although had paid the amount accruing towards electricity duty for the year 2001-2002 in W.P.(T) No. 499/2010; for the year 2002-03 in W.P(T) No. 517/2010; for the year 2003-04 in W.P.(T) No. 489/2010 and for the year 2004-05 in W.P .(T) No. 491/2010 the respondent no.4-Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh started proceedings for review of the payment which had already been deposited by the petitioner and thereafter passed an order raising a demand by way of difference which according to the respondent-authority should have been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent-authority meaning thereby that the deficit amount which ought to have .been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent-authority had not been deposited. 2. The break-up of the difference has also been given out by the petitioner which is Rs. 73,44,415/- in W.P.(T) No. 499/ 2010; Rs. 74,76,297/- in W.P.(T) No. 517/ 2010; Rs. 79,54,929/- in W.P.(T)'No. 489/ 2010 and Rs. 78,67,823/- in W.P.(T) No. 491/2010. 3. The sole ground of challenge to this proceeding of review is by placing reliance on sub-Section (4) of Section 9A of the Bihar Electricity Act, 1948 wherein it has been laid down as follows:- "Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, any order passed under this Act or the rules made there under may be reviewed by the authority passing it or by its successor-in-office." 4. Placing reliance on this provision it was submitted that although the assessment of the electricity duty for the year referred to hereinbefore had been made by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Ramgarh Circle and the payment was also made by the petitioner C).s per the order passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, the same was reviewed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes contrary to the provisions referred to hereinbefore which envisages that the review could be made by the authority assessing it or by its successor-in-office which admittedly is the Commercial Taxes Officer in all these matters. But the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes overlooked and exceeded his jurisdiction by initiating a review in regard to the payment of deficit amount which according to the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes was payable by way of electricity duty. 5. Thus, it is clear that the. But the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes overlooked and exceeded his jurisdiction by initiating a review in regard to the payment of deficit amount which according to the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes was payable by way of electricity duty. 5. Thus, it is clear that the. only ground of challenge by the petitioner is to assail the authority of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes who initiated review of the assessment proceeding for electricity duty which ultimately was made by the Commercial Taxes Officer and it could not be disputed that in so far as the question of the authority or jurisdiction of review is concerned, there is no ambiguity or any legal impediment in reviewing the matter and cannot be held to be without authority and the only ground of challenge was regarding the competent authority who could initiate the review proceeding. 6. In view of the provision laid down in sub-section (4) of Section 9A of the Electricity Act, it is clear that the review proceeding could have been reopened but the counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct to the extent that the same could have been done by the assessin9 authority or by his successor-in-office but not by any authority higher in rank than the assessing officer. This position was difficult to be confronted even by the respondents and, therefore, we thought it appropriate to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the review proceeding at the most could be done by the Commercial Taxes Officer. 7. In view of this short controversy raised by the counsel for the petitioner in which we find no infirmity, we direct that all the review petitions which are subject matter of challenge in all these four writ petitions, shall be decided by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh in regard to the payment of electricity duty who will arrive at a conclusion whether the electricity duty charged earlier was correct or any additional amount sought to be claimed by the respondent authority is sustainable. If that is done, the requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 9A of the Bihar Electricity Act obviously will get addressed and in that view of the matter, the petitioner can have no grievance. 8. If that is done, the requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 9A of the Bihar Electricity Act obviously will get addressed and in that view of the matter, the petitioner can have no grievance. 8. Consequently, the demand notices which had been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh Circle shall not be given effect to and shall be kept in abeyance. Although counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to record an observation to the effect that the petitioner should be allowed to raise all contentions, we are of the view that this clearly would be a superfluous exercise as it clearly implies that the reviewing authority which is the Commercial Taxes Officer will obviously grant liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions in regard to the review which have been reopened. 9. Since the matter in effect is practically remitted to the Commercial Taxes Officer from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, we are of the view that no fresh notice is required to be issued to the petitioner in regard to the review proceeding as this Court has merely accepted the contention that the Commercial Taxes Officer would have been the appropriate authority to entertain the review petition. Under the facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the view that a fresh notice is not required to be served to the petitioner except communicating the date on which review would be heard by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh. 10. Since the matter has been remanded by the Court to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Ramgarh Circle, question of a fresh sanction from the higher authority to the Commercial Taxes Officer is not required and this part of the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that a fresh sanction is required from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes is clearly unreasonable and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In view of the above observations and directions all the writ petitions be treated as disposed of.