JUDGMENT The petitioner has preferred these two petitions, wherein in original assessment of the year 2005, the assessee preferred appeal which was dismissed in the year 2008 and the assessee preferred revision petition before the revisional authority in the year 2010. According to the petitioner, in the said revision, after making endorsement of presentation of the revisions, no date was fixed which is required to be fixed by the revisional authority and thereafter also no intimation is given to the assessee of fixing of the date. However, after about three years the petitioner received a notice of garnishee order dated 15.1.2013.The petitioner challenged the said garnishee order dated 15.1.2013 in this petition. When the matters were taken up by this Court on 22.1.2013, some important facts came to the notice of this Court, upon which, this Court passed a detailed order and directed the revisional authority the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand as well as the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur to place before this Court the facts and figures of year-wise pendency of the revision petitions pending before the revisional authority and also to disclose that in how many revision petitions, initial date has not been fixed for the period more than six months. In response to the order dated 22.1.2013, both the above authorities have filed the counter affidavit. It will be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the order dated 22.1.2013:- “Accordingly, the learned counsel for the Revenue, it was the duty of the applicant in revisional petition to press for interim relief before the revisional authority which has not been done by the petitioner which appears from the facts of the case which indicate that the revision petition has been filed in the year 2010 and the present petition has been filed seeking a direction as contained in the order passed in the case of M/s Sai International (supra) in the year 2013. We are of the considered opinion that large number of cases are coming before this Court and also have come before the other High Courts which is apparent from the various orders referred above wherein the prayer for interim relief has not been considered resulting into passing of the order by the High Court against taking the coercive steps for recovery of tax amount or the demand raised by the Revenue. Prima facie, we are of the considered opinion that even if the assessee who prefers the revision petition before the revisional authority has not pressed for hearing of the revision petition, even then, it is the duty of the revisional court to manage its own affairs and cannot say that because the assessee did not ask for the hearing of the revision petition or the application for grant of interim relief, therefore, they were not under obligation to fix a date for hearing the revision or the application for grant of interim relief. Once date is fixed and applicant will not appear then only revisional authority may pass appropriate order but revisional authority cannot wait for moving of any application for listing the revision for any order. If this attitude is correct, then in that situation, the revision petition preferred by the revisionist may not be decided for decades because of non filing of application for fixing the date in the revision petition. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the courts and the tribunals are not dependent upon the zeal and the efforts of the litigant to manage their own affairs and the authority in power is supposed to manage their own affairs and to decide the cases according to their own management system uninfluenced by the inaction of the litigant that is also the theme of the National Litigation Policy and now it has been adopted by the Central Government as well as by almost all the State Government. We are constraint to observe again here that by taking such type of objectionable attitude of non-consideration of the application for interim prayer virtually the authorities are helping the persons who want to avoid the payment of tax by compelling the court to pass interim order against the recovery or against taking coercive measures. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 Commissioner cum Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand, as well as the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, are directed to state and place before this Court the yearwise pendency of the revision petition before the revisional authority, and also directed to place on record that in how many revision petitions initial date has been fixed for the period more than six months.” 2. It appears from the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who has filed the affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.1 revisional authority that in a large number of revision petitions notices (total 374) have been served upon large number of revision petitioners by publication of notices in newspapers. Notices for above 374 revisions pending upto since last twelve years were published between 04.12.2012 to 03.02.2013 only. By first publication, notices were published in the news papers for 30 revision petitions which is pending since 2001 to 2004. In second advertisement in the news paper, notices were issued for 58 revision petitions of the year 2004. By third advertisement, notices for 50 revision petitions were published for the revision petitions of the year 2004 and then by fourth advertisement, notices were published for 80 revision petitions and that too for the year 2004. By fifth advertisement, notices were issued of the revision petitions for the year 2006 as well as of 2001, which were total 58. By sixth advertisement, notices were issued for total 29 revision petitions which are of the year 2006 and one of the year 2010. By sixth advertisement, notices were issued for 53 revision petitions of the year 2004 and 2006. 3. From the reply affidavit, it appears that the revisional authority disposed of 516 cases within the period of only eight months i.e., from July, 2012 to 22nd February, 2013. During this period, the revisional authority decided 326 old cases, 111 cases of the year 2012 and 79 cases of the year 2013. So far as the pendency is concerned at the time of filing of the affidavit, all revision petitions starting from the earliest year 2001 to 2005 have already been decided. The total pendency of the year 2012, since 2006, has been shows to be 646. It has been stated that out of these cases in 98 cases, no notices were issued. It has not been made clear that for what period, the notices have not been issued in these 98 cases. That was the relevant fact, as this Court directed by order dated 22.1.2013 to also give the details of the revision petitions in which the initial date was not fixed for a period more than six months. It has not been made clear that for what period, the notices have not been issued in these 98 cases. That was the relevant fact, as this Court directed by order dated 22.1.2013 to also give the details of the revision petitions in which the initial date was not fixed for a period more than six months. Be that as it may, as per the affidavit in all the 98 revision petitions, now the notices have been issued for hearing of those matters in the month of March, 2013. 4. The above figures clearly indicate that the workload before the revisional authority was not too much even in the time when in fact there was no systematic way of fixing of the dates in the revision petitions. The another important fact is that the revisional authority in eight months has decided 516 revision petitions and disposed of the revision petition which is pending since 2001 to 2005 leaving nil pendency for these years. This fact clearly indicate that if the revision petitions would have been heard regularly, the pendency before the revisional authority would have been virtual minimal which may not have been even in 3 figures. 5. In the backdrop of these facts, we may revert back to the facts of the case of these petitions, wherein the assessment order was passed in the year 2005 and the appeal was dismissed in the year 2008 and revision petition was preferred in the year 2010 and admittedly there was no interim order in favour of the assessee since the year 2010. Therefore, the revenue itself was not serious in recovery of the State dues for almost eight years if, there was no stay during the pendency of the appeal and if, there was stay, then in that situation, the revenue was not serious in recovery of the revenue for almost three years. Then, the assessing officer, after about three years, straightway issued the garnishee order dated 15.1.2013. It appears that the revenue since is having a very strong weapon in their hands, therefore, the revenue is under the impression that such weapon can be used arbitrarily and at any time suitable to their whims even in a case where business of running concern may crippled or it may deprive a large number of employees even from their the salary. There are catena of authorities, wherein it has been made clear that in what circumstances harsh orders can be passed in the matter of recovery of revenue and when they should not be passed. The issue involved in these petitions are of two folds; one with respect to the indiscriminate use of the power to recover the dues of the revenue and the another of non giving of the opportunity of obtaining the interim order from the appellate or revisional authority when appeal or revision petitions are kept pending even without fixing the first date of hearing for several years. Since, in this matter, after order of this Court dated 22.01.2013 the revision petitions preferred by the petitioner have already been decided, and therefore, the impugned garnishee order is no more surviving, and therefore, the issue raised by the petitioner about the power of the assessing officer to issue the garnishee order in the long pending revision petitions is left open to be considered and decided in appropriate case particularly in the matters where the appeals or the revisions have been preferred and no dates have been fixed by the said authorities for consideration of the revision petitions or interim prayer. 6. Another issue is of having no procedure of regular fixing of dates in revisions by the revisional authority. So far as the procedure for hearing of the revision petition is concerned, it appears from the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 that only provision in the Rules is Rule53 which says that for the purpose of Sub Section(4) of Section 80 i.e. for hearing of the revision petition, the Commissioner may require any dealer by notice in FormJVAT302, to produce or cause to be produced before him such documents or material evidence which may be deemed fit. In the Rules, there is no procedure described that how the revision petition will be dealt with when it is presented by the assessee under Sub Section(4) of Section80. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whenever revision is presented an endorsement is put on the revision petition but no date is fixed for reporting on the revision petition, thereafter, also the revision petition will remain in the office unless and until the assessee will make efforts for getting the date fixed for consideration of even interim prayer much less of fixing date for hearing of the revision petition. It appears from the contention of the petitioner as well as from the counter filed by the respondent that in fact in large number of cases, no notices fixing the date were issued for months together and may be for years. Such practice is deprecated inspite of the fact that according to the learned counsel for the revenue, the revisional authority is the administrative head of the department and he has to discharge administrative function in the revenue matters in the entire State of Jharkhand because of the reason that, once the right is given to any assessee to challenge the order may be by preferring appeal or may be by revision, then there must be some system and known procedure for taking up the matters and that is the duty of the appellate and the revisional authority which is not dependent upon any effort of the assessee who has preferred the appeal or revision. We have already observed in our order dated 22.01.2013 that the Court and Tribunals are not dependent upon the zeal and efforts of the litigants to manage Court's or Tribunal's affairs and the authority in power is suppose to manage their own affairs and to decide the case according to their own managing system uninfluenced by the inaction of the litigants and that is also the theme of the National Litigation Policy which has been adopted by the Central Government as well as by the State Government. 7. This Court also came across a large number of matters coming to the Courts only because of the reason that all of sudden, harsh garnishee orders are issued in the matters where the appeal or revisions have already been preferred by the assessee and in those appeals and revisions, no initial date has been fixed by the same authority for years for even consideration of prayer for interim relief. This Court also has came across a large number of cases which came up before the various High Courts in India. Some of are the orders passed in the cases, Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 09th January, 2013 delivered in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. vrs. Union of India and others; the order of a Division Bench of Madras High Court, dated 18th January, 2013 delivered in the case of Bonfiglioli Transmission Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Some of are the orders passed in the cases, Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 09th January, 2013 delivered in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. vrs. Union of India and others; the order of a Division Bench of Madras High Court, dated 18th January, 2013 delivered in the case of Bonfiglioli Transmission Pvt. Ltd. vrs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai and others; the order of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court, dated 17th January, 2013 delivered in the case of Uhde India Private Limited vrs. Union of India and others and the order of a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court dated 21st January, 2013 delivered in the case RSWM Ltd vrs. Union of India and others. In all these cases, the recovery proceedings have been stayed upon finding that the concerned Bench is not constituted so as to hear the appeal or to pass any order on the stay petition. This Court in this very matter, while considering interim prayer observed on 22nd January, 2013 that:- “......this is a procedure in the hierarchy at the level of revisional authority that whenever revision is filed along with the prayer for interim relief, no date is fixed by the office of the revisional authority nor by the revisional authority itself. As per the procedure, one is to wait for any notice from the revisional authority and that may take years. There are number of cases wherein no coercive steps are taken for recovery of tax amount or any demand which is under challenge in the revision petition in spite of the fact that the appeal is rejected and in revision application no interim order is passed and such type of matters are kept pending before assessing authority so as to use the order for recovery at any time by taking coercive measures including attaching the bank account of running unit of the assessee, making all the working cripelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on various judgments like judgment of Karnatka High Court rendered in the case of M.L. Narasimha Gupta Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bangalore & Ors. reported in 75 STC 154, and another judgment of Division of Andhra Pradesh High Court, delivered in the case of Anabe Shahi Wines and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division, Nampally, Hyderabad & Ors. Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bangalore & Ors. reported in 75 STC 154, and another judgment of Division of Andhra Pradesh High Court, delivered in the case of Anabe Shahi Wines and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division, Nampally, Hyderabad & Ors. reported in 98 STC 386 and another judgment of Madras High Court delivered in the case of Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore & Ors. reported in (2008) 17 VST 32 (Mad. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed on record the copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (T) No. 1348 of 2012 in the case of Tata Cummins Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand & another dated 14.03.2012 and other orders. In sum and substance, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional authority is not only not entertaining any prayer for interim relief for years together, and this Court in the case of W.P. (T) No. 5585 of 2012 in the case of M/s Sai International Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. dated 18.09.2012, finding the same situation of non consideration of prayer for interim relief of the assessee directed the revisional authority to decide the revision petition of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of production of copy of the said order and if the revisional authority is not in a position to decide the revision petition itself within that period, then the revisional authority after hearing both the parties may forthwith consider the application for interim relief”. This Court also observed that because of such situation created by revenue authorities, appellate or revisional, the High Courts are left with no option but to pass interim orders restraining recovery of the revenue. This has heavily burdened the High Courts in the entire India including this Court for no reason and the government revenue is suffering heavily. If the assessee would not have been deprived of opportunity to pray for consideration of his relief for his relief for interim relief before the appellate or revisional authority, who also could have refused the interim relief. If the assessee would not have been deprived of opportunity to pray for consideration of his relief for his relief for interim relief before the appellate or revisional authority, who also could have refused the interim relief. The gravity increased when such type of garnishee orders, after several years, during the pendency of the appeals or revisions, are issued and on any particular point of time when the appellate authority or revisional authority are not available due to transfer or vacancy resulting into unnecessary litigation in the High Courts and that too only for consideration of prayer for interim relief in the matters where main matters remain pending with the appellate or revisional authority of the department of the revenue. 8. In these circumstances, we direct the revisional authority Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand to see that under his authority, the appellate and revisional authority shall fix the date of hearing without any delay and without being any further effort made by the assessee when appeal or revision has been preferred by the assessee and even in a case where the appeal or revision has been filed with defects then by fixing the date so that the assessee may know and remove the defects and systematically the assessee's prayer for interim relief in the revision or the appeal may be decided. 9. At the cost of repetition, we are observing that the revisional authority himself has shown that 516 cases can be decided in a period of only 7 months and total pendency before the revisional authority is only 646 matters. Such pendency would not have been, if the matters would have been heard by the revisional authority periodically and in time, the revenue may not have suffered a huge because of keeping the matters pending for 12 years, as is apparent from the reply affidavit. 10. With above observations and directions, both these writ petitions are disposed of.