ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. These writ petitions have been preferred mainly challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Deoghar Circle, Deoghar dated 11th February, 2016 and also challenging the order of penalty passed by the said officer as well as the garnishee notice issued by the respondents and also against the recovery of Rs.24,99,464.89 paise already made de hors the provisions of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 to be read with rule made there under of 2006. 2. Grievances have also been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petitions that road permit has also been blocked by the respondents which may also be unblocked and only three days time has given to reply the notice. When the time was sought for giving the reply, instead of giving time an order has been passed by the aforesaid officer which is at Annexure13 to the memo of W.P.(T) No.1677 of 2016. Purchase of capital goods amount has been treated as a turnover amount which is absolutely in grossest violation of the principles of the Act, 2005. 3. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a newly established company and therefore, capital goods have been purchased. The company is bound to take some time for purchasing of the goods. A copy of monthly return and quarterly return have also been filed which are annexed with this writ petition. In monthly return there is no column where purchases have to be reflected whereas in quarterly return, there is column about purchases made during such quarters. For the 1st quarter the capital goods purchased is of Rs. 6,03,84,000/-. Similarly, it has also been mentioned that further capital goods have been purchased worth Rs.13,16,18,882/-, further capital goods purchased worth Rs. 42,73,750/- and lastly, the capital goods purchased worth Rs. 41,66,102/-. These purchases of capital goods have been treated as turnover. This is an error apparent on the face of the record committed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Deoghar Circle, Deoghar. 4. Notice has been issued by the respondents dated 20th January, 2016 which is at Annexure11 to the writ petition being W.P.(T) No.1677 of 2016 and only three days time has been given to give reply. This is an error apparent on the face of the record committed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Deoghar Circle, Deoghar. 4. Notice has been issued by the respondents dated 20th January, 2016 which is at Annexure11 to the writ petition being W.P.(T) No.1677 of 2016 and only three days time has been given to give reply. When prayer was made to get further time, it was not granted and the order was passed dated 25th January, 2016/11th February, 2016 which is at Annexure-13. It has been mentioned that there is no proceeding and thereafter, whole order has been passed. We failed to understand what type of order this officer has passed. It appears that there is need to have an 'Orientation Course' to be conducted by the Principal Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes of the State of Jharkhand for such type of officers. An order of penalty has also been passed dated 11th February, 2016 which is at Annexure14 to the memo of the aforesaid writ. Garnishee order has also been passed dated 18th March, 2016 and the respondents have also recovered Rs.24,99,464.89 paise. 5. Counsel appearing for the State, upon instructions, submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Deoghar Circle, Deoghar dated 25th January, 2016/11th February, 2016 (Annexure-13) is to be taken under suo motu revision under Section 18(4) of the Act, 2005 by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand and consequential orders of penalty and garnishee order will also not to be executed. 6. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents-State that the road permit which was blocked by the respondents-State, has now been ordered to be unblocked. Thus, online road permit has been unblocked by 12.56 noon today and, hence, writ petition being W.P.(T) No. 1676 of 2016 may be brought to an end because grievances ventilated in this writ petition are no more now in existence. 7. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) purchase of capital goods cannot be treated as turnover. 7. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) purchase of capital goods cannot be treated as turnover. (ii) it ought to be kept in mind by the officers of the State especially those who are wedded with quasi judicial power under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 that whenever any new industry is established capital goods are bound to be purchased first and turnover takes sometime. This “sometime” may be of few months. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Deoghar Circle, Deoghar while issuing show cause notice dated 20th January, 2016 (Annexure-11). (iii) Whenever any show cause notice is issued to the assessee or to the tax payers at least reasonable time should have been given to file reply. High ranking administrative officers may organize Orientation Classes for these types of officers. Tax payers cannot be called upon overnight to give reply except emergency so requires like disposal of the properties by the assessee etc. (iv) As the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes have assured that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes dated 25th January, 2016/11th February, 2016 and subsequent orders of penalty and garnishee order i.e. Annexure-13, 14 and Annexure-16 are now taken into suo motu revision under Section 18(4) of the Act, 2005, we are restraining ourselves in further criticizing the aforesaid officer, but, it appears that there is a need of having 'Orientation or Refresher Course' by the State for such type of officers so that this type of error should not be repeated otherwise, this further resulted into multifarious-ness of the courts proceeding. (v) Counsel for the State, upon instructions, submitted that Rs. 24,99,464.89 paise will be returned to this petitioner on or before 5th April, 2016 and as the Government has already made the aforesaid statement, we are not passing the further order and we are not describing them how the illegal recovery is. 8. In view of the aforesaid observations, both these writ petitions are hereby, disposed of. Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to move before this Court in case of any difficulty.