ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. These writ petitions have been preferred for different financial years. The details of writ petitions and the financial years are as under:- Case Nos. Period WPT No. 4885/2014 2013-14 WPT No. 4886/2014 2009-10 WPT No. 4887/2014 2008-09 WPT No. 4888/2014 2012-13 WPT No. 4889/2014 2011-12 WPT No. 4890/2014 2010-11 2. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner in all the aforesaid writ petitions is a Central Government Company and it is not selling any item and, therefore, it is not liable for tax under Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act 2005"). 3. Despite these facts, the petitioner applied under Section 58 of the Act, 2005 to be read with Rule 12(5) of the Jharkhand Valued Added Tax Rules, 2006 for composition of tax and file quarterly returns in the format in accordance with the Rules, 2006. Unnecessarily, the petitioner has invited trouble for making payment of Value Added Tax @ 2% of the total turn over. The amount of several crores have been paid by the petitioner to the respondent-State as Jharkhand Value Added Tax. 4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is rendering services and is also paying service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. TDS has also been deducted in all the aforesaid six cases. Thus, TDS has also been deducted and composite tax has also been paid, which cannot go together. 5. The realisation of following amounts for the period running from 2008-09 to 2013-14 for which garnishee notices have been issued are as under:- Period Amount 2008-09 1,49,73,450/- 2009-10 2,10,92,450/- 2010-11 1,50,72,468/- 2011-12 28,78,859/- 2012-13 65,31,225/- 2013-14 14,13,843.80/- Total Rs. 6,19,62,295.80 6. It appears that for the financial year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, assessments have also been made, whereas, for rest of three years i.e. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, assessment is yet to be made, as under the Composition Scheme, the returns were filed by the petitioner and on that basis the amount towards the Jharkhand Value Added Tax can be calculated. Because of all these difficulties, writ petitions have been preferred. Two things at a time cannot go together viz. the petitioner has already opted for Composition Scheme and TDS has also been deducted. Because of all these difficulties, writ petitions have been preferred. Two things at a time cannot go together viz. the petitioner has already opted for Composition Scheme and TDS has also been deducted. Thus, there is violation of Composition Scheme by the petitioner and, hence, now regular assessment is being made for six years. 7. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State annexing following chart so far excess amount realised by the State from the petitioner, which reads as under:- Period Excess payment recovered 2008-09 1,49,73,144/- 2009-10 2,10,92,450/- 2010-11 1,50,72,072/- 2011-12 0 2012-13 0 2013-14 500.2 Total 5,11,37,165.80 8. After the assessment order was passed for the financial year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, review was made by the respondents and, thereafter, appeals were preferred by the petitioner. The appeals preferred by the petitioner were dismissed. Against this order, the petitioner has also preferred further review in the Tribunal and as the writ petitions have been preferred, those review applications have not been pursued further. 9. It also appears that for the financial year 2008-09, the amount of Rs. 1,49,73,144/- is deposited under the TDS under Section 44 of the Act, 2005. This is the excess amount, recovered by the State of Jharkhand. Similarly for the financial year 2009-10, excess amount recovered by the State of Jharkhand from the petitioner is at Rs. 2,10,92,450/- and for the financial year 2010-11, the excess amount recovered by the respondent-State of Jharkhand is at Rs. 1,50,72,072/-. These figures are as per the calculation of the State of Jharkhand. Thus, under Section 58 of the Act, 2005, the petitioner has deposited the amount under Composition Scheme. After going into the Composition Scheme, the petitioner, in fact, was not liable to pay TDS. Wrongly, tax has been deducted at source by the respective contractors/parties, whose work is being performed by the petitioner. Thus, the State of Jharkhand has received double amount. In fact, under Section 35 of the Act, 2005, the petitioner is now required to be assessed during it is not in the Composition Scheme for all the six years. Hence, we hereby quash and set aside the order of assessment, dated 30th March, 2011, order of review dated 16th July, 2014, demand notice dated 21st July, 2014 arising out of the order of review and appellate order dated 15th May, 2015 arising out of the order of review for the financial year 2008-09. Hence, we hereby quash and set aside the order of assessment, dated 30th March, 2011, order of review dated 16th July, 2014, demand notice dated 21st July, 2014 arising out of the order of review and appellate order dated 15th May, 2015 arising out of the order of review for the financial year 2008-09. Similarly, the order of assessment, dated 27th July, 2012, order of review dated 18th July, 2014, demand notice dated 21st July, 2014 arising out of the order of review and appellate order dated 15th May, 2015 arising out of the order of review for the financial year 2009-10 are hereby quash and set aside. Similarly, the order of assessment, dated 4th March, 2013, order of review dated 19th July, 2014, demand notice dated 21st July, 2014 arising out of the order of review and appellate order dated 15th May, 2015 arising out of the order of review for the financial year 2010-11 are hereby quash and set aside. 10. As the TDS has been deducted under Section 44 of the Act, 2005, now the petitioner seizes to be in Composition Scheme and, hence, for rest three years also, there shall be fresh assessment to be made by the respondents i.e. for the financial years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 11. This Court has already directed the petitioner to join Comptroller and Auditor General of India through Accountant General (Audit), Ranchi, Jharkhand as respondent, vide order dated 29th June, 2015. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the office of the Accountant General that Inspection Report No. 64/2011-12 has been given and it has been stated in paragraph 4B that certain irregularities were committed by the petitioner. The turn over shown by the petitioner is lesser than actual one. Similarly, in Paragraph No. 8 of the Inspection Report No. 68/2013, certain other irregularities have been pointed out about the petitioner, which has a direct nexus with the assessment under the Act, 2005. 13. The competent authority of the State of Jharkhand shall keep in mind the Inspection Report supplied by the office of the Accountant General. The assessment shall be made after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 14. So far as withdrawal of the amount by the petitioner is concerned, separate interlocutory applications have been preferred in each of the aforesaid writ petitions. 15. The assessment shall be made after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 14. So far as withdrawal of the amount by the petitioner is concerned, separate interlocutory applications have been preferred in each of the aforesaid writ petitions. 15. As stated here in above, the petitioner has not only paid the tax under the Composition Scheme under Section 58 of the Act, 2005, but, TDS has also been deducted and realised under Section 44 of the Act, 2005. The amount of Rs. 5,11,37,666/- has been deposited by the respondent-State before the Registrar General of this Court, as per the order passed by this Court dated 12th October, 2015 in these writ petitions. Out of total amount of Rs. 5,11,37,666/- amount of Rs. 4 Crores will be returned by the Registrar General of this Court to the petitioner and rest of the amount will be returned to the respondent-State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, East Circle, Ranchi. The amount which is returned to the respondent-State shall be adjusted towards liability of the petitioner, if any, after correct assessment is being made, keeping in mind the provisions of the Act and also keeping in mind the Inspection Reports given by the office of the Accountant General. If the tax liability is lesser than Rs. 1,11,37,666/- rest of the amount will be refunded/adjusted to the petitioner. The petitioner is also at liberty to move before this Court in case of any difficulty and in case the amount of Rs. 1,11,37,666/- is not properly refunded or adjusted. The petitioner shall be liable to make the payment of tax after the finalisation of the assessment. 16. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. 17. In view of final disposal of the writ petitions, all the aforesaid interlocutory applications are also disposed of. Petition disposed of.