ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred mainly challenging the orders which are annexed at Annexures 10 and 11 to the memo of this writ petition. Annexure-10 is an order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Review Case No. 64 of 2001, which is renumbered as Review Case No. 771 of 2004, dated 19th February, 2013 and Annexure11 is demand notice dated 8th March, 2013 on the basis of the reassessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur dated 18th December, 1999. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the assessment year 1996-97, two orders were passed by the assessing officer being Commercial Taxes Officer for Bihar Sales Tax (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as “BST”) and for Central Sales Tax (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as “CST”). This assessment order is dated 6th January, 1999, against which, revision applications being Revision Case Nos. 64 and 65 of 1999-2000 were preferred by the petitioner assessee under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, for CST and BST respectively. 3. The revision application was finally decided vide order dated 23rd June,1999 (Annexure-1) and the matter was remanded for the assessment to be made on the basis of presentation of documents by the petitioner especially Form C and Form F. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Form H was left out by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes while deciding Revision Case No. 64 of 1999-2000 and, hence, in reassessment proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, no relief was granted so far as Form H is concerned, which is meant for penultimate sale before export of the goods under Section 5(1) of the CST Act. The error which was made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, was continued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes while passing the reassessment order on 18th December,1999 (Annexure-2 to the memo of this writ petition). So far as BST is concerned, the same was reiterated even for the reassessment proceedings because in revision application, nothing was mentioned about BST. 5. So far as BST is concerned, the same was reiterated even for the reassessment proceedings because in revision application, nothing was mentioned about BST. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 18th December, 1999 which is a reassessment order (Annexure-2 to the memo of this writ petition), two appeals were preferred being Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 for BST and CST respectively. These appeals were preferred under Section 45 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur. These appeals were pending. Meanwhile, Revision Case No. 64 of 2001 for BST and Revision Case No. 66 of 2001 for CST, against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 18th December, 1999, were preferred before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Both these revision applications were disposed of by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide order dated 21st May, 2002 (Annexure-6) mainly on the ground that the assessee has already preferred appeals against the very same order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 18th December, 1999. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now two appeals being Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 were pending before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). These two appeals were against the order of reassessment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 18th December, 1999. At length, hearing was going before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and detailed speaking orders have been passed on 1st August, 2002 in both Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 for BST as well as CST. These orders are at Annexures 7 and 7/1 to the memo of this writ petition. In this order, all types of Forms viz. Form C, Form F and Form H were allowed to be presented by the assessee before the Commercial Taxes Officer and the matters were remanded. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and submitted that the period of limitation for reassessment after the remand order is passed by the appellate authority is two years. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and submitted that the period of limitation for reassessment after the remand order is passed by the appellate authority is two years. Nothing has been done not only within two years and even thereafter for several years and now Revision Case No. 64 of 2001, which was preferred in the erstwhile State of Bihar was renumbered as Review Case No. 771 of 2004 after bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand, was dismissed on 19th February, 2013 by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi and, thereafter, on 8th March, 2013, directly demand notice was issued on the basis of the reassessment order dated 18th December, 1999. Both these orders are impugned orders which are at Annexures 10 and 11 to the memo of this writ petition. Neither Annexure10 nor Annexure-11 has appreciated the appellate orders in Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) dated 1st August, 2002 and also without appreciating Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and, hence, both Annexures 10 and 11 deserve to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 266 and has submitted that in view of Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, consequent upon the appellate order no reassessment order can be passed after the period of two years from the date of receipt of the appellate order. After the appellate order passed in Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 for BST and CST, no reassessment has ever been made and directly demand notice dated 8th March, 2013 (Annexure-11) has been issued and, hence also, the orders at Annexures 10 and 11 deserve to be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that initially assessment was made on 6th January, 1999 for the assessment year 1996-97 both for BST as well as CST, thereafter, revision application being Revision Case Nos. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that initially assessment was made on 6th January, 1999 for the assessment year 1996-97 both for BST as well as CST, thereafter, revision application being Revision Case Nos. 64 and 65 of 1999-2000 were preferred and for limited purpose, remand order was passed to allow the assessee to present Form C and Form F only and, hence, reassessment order was passed on 18th December, 1999 maintaining assessment order of BST as it is, whereas, on the basis of documents presented by the assessee in Form C and Form F, fresh order for liability of CST was also passed. The order dated 18th December, 1999 is at Annexure-2 to the memo of this writ petition. Against this order of reassessment, following proceedings were initiated: (a) Revision Case No. 64 of 2001 (for CST); (b) Revision Case No. 66 of 2001 (for BST); (c) Review Case No. 771 of 2004 against the order dated 23rd June, 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; and (d) Two appeals being Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent State that Revision Case Nos. 64 and 66 of 2001 were disposed of vide order dated 21st May, 2002 (Annexure-6) because Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 were pending, but, the case left out was Review Case No. 771 of 2004 against the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 23rd June, 1999 and this review case was dismissed on 19th February, 2013 (Annexure-10) by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, whereby, argument about presentation of Form H, which is meant for penultimate transaction of the export or before export, was not allowed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ultimately demand notice dated 8th March, 2013 (Annexure-11) was issued, thereby, no wrong has been committed by the respondent State and, hence, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court. REASONS: 10. REASONS: 10. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, we hereby quash and set aside the order at Annexure-10 as well as order/notice at Annexure-11 dated 19th February, 2013 and 8th March, 2013 respectively mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) For the assessment year 1996-97, two separate orders were passed by the Assessing Officer being Commercial Taxes Officer on 6th January, 1999 for Bihar Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax. (ii) Against these orders, two Revision Case Nos. 64 and 65 of 1999-2000 were preferred under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for CST and BST respectively. (iii) These revision applications were decided by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and for any reason whatsoever, there was no reference of Form H which is meant for penultimate transaction/sale of export under Section 5(1) of the CST Act, whereas, assessee was allowed to present Form C and Form F before the Assessing Officer. Also in the revisional order finally passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, there was no reference about BST and the remand order was passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 23rd June, 1999 (Annexure-1). (iv) On the basis of this remand order, reassessment order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 18th December, 1999 which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of this writ petition. As Form H was never referred in the revisional order, Form H was never allowed to be presented by the assessee before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes during the process of reassessment and order of BST was maintained as it is because in the revisional order, nothing was mentioned about BST. (v) Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the reassessment orders of BST and CST, the petitioner assessee preferred two separate Appeals being Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 under Section 45 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for BST and CST respectively before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). (vi) Over cautious petitioner has also preferred Revision Case Nos. 64 of 2001 and 66 of 2001 against the order dated 18th December, 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. These two revision applications were preferred before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and they were finally disposed of vide order dated 21st May, 2002 (Annexure-6) because both the appeals being Nos. 64 of 2001 and 66 of 2001 against the order dated 18th December, 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. These two revision applications were preferred before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and they were finally disposed of vide order dated 21st May, 2002 (Annexure-6) because both the appeals being Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 of the very same assessee against the very same order of reassessment dated 18th December, 1991 were pending. (vii) Later on, Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 were decided by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) vide order dated 1st August, 2002. These two order are at Annexures-7 and 7/1. Detailed speaking orders have been passed, for which, the assessee petitioner was allowed to present all types of Forms viz. Form- C, Form- F and Form- H meant for different purposes especially for CST and the matter was remanded. (viii) Nothing has happened thereafter, neither during the period of limitation nor several years thereafter. The period of limitation has been referred in Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. For the ready reference, Section 24 reads as under:- “24. Period of limitation for completion of assessment proceedings.- Except a proceeding under subsection (5) of section 17, section 18 and subsection (1) of section 19 no proceedings for assessment of the tax payable by a dealer under this part in respect of any period shall be initiated and completed except before the expiry of four years from the expiry of such period: Provided that a proceeding for reassessment in pursuance of or as a result of an order on appeal, revision and reference or review shall be initiated and completed before the expiry of two years from the date of communication of such order to the assessing authority.” (emphasis supplied) (ix) In view of proviso to Section 24, the proceedings for reassessment in pursuance of the appellate order or revisional order or reference or review order, has to be initiated and completed before expiry of two years from the date of communication of such order to the assessing authority. Nothing has been brought on record that within the aforesaid time limit prescribed under the statute, reassessment order has ever been passed. Nothing has been brought on record that within the aforesaid time limit prescribed under the statute, reassessment order has ever been passed. Nothing has been argued, about any reassessment order passed after the appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), by the learned counsel for the respondent State. Thus, no reassessment order has been passed after the order passed by the appellate forum i.e. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) in Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 for BST and CST respectively (Annexures-7 and 7/1). (x) It appears that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has decided Review Case No. 771 of 2004 on 19th February, 2013 because previously preferred Revision Case No. 64 of 2001 before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the erstwhile State of Bihar was transferred to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes after bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand, which was renumbers as Review Case No. 771 of 2004. Much has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent State that Revision Case No. 64 of 2001 was never decided by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and that was decided on 19th February, 2013 and the review application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order at Annexure-10 thereby Form H has not been allowed to be presented before the assessing officer. This contention is of no help for the respondents to issue demand notice dated 8th March, 2013 which is at Annexure11 to the memo of this writ petition mainly for the reasons that- (a) Once Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 for BST and CST was already decided by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) vide order dated 1st August, 2002, in which, all the Forms i.e. Form C, Form F and Form H were allowed to be presented by the assessee before the assessing officer, nothing was left out to be decided by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Review Case No. 771 of 2004. (b) After the appellate order is passed, no reassessment order has been passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. Thus, initially the assessment was made on 6th January, 1999 in Revision Case Nos. 64 and 65 of 1999-2000 preferred by the assessee. The matter was remanded against the reassessment order passed on 18th December, 1999 (Annexure-2) and in Appeal Nos. (b) After the appellate order is passed, no reassessment order has been passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. Thus, initially the assessment was made on 6th January, 1999 in Revision Case Nos. 64 and 65 of 1999-2000 preferred by the assessee. The matter was remanded against the reassessment order passed on 18th December, 1999 (Annexure-2) and in Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000, the matter was remanded and Form C, Form F and Form H were allowed to be presented by the assessee and, hence, reassessment order could have been passed by the respondents, but, no reassessment order has ever been passed finalizing the liability of the petitioner. (c) Looking to Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, the order of reassessment can be passed within a period of two years from the date of communication of the order passed in the appeal/revision/reference/review, but, no such reassessment order has been passed after 1st August, 2002 i.e. after the appellate order is passed. (xi) The demand notice dated 8th March, 2013 which is at Annexure-11 has been issued ignoring (a) The appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) dated 1st August, 2002 in Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 19992000 (Annexures 7 and 7/1). (b) Also ignoring the fact that no reassessment proceedings have been initiated and completed before expiry of two years from the date of communication of the appellate order. (c) The demand notice has been issued on the basis of the reassessment order dated 18th December, 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, but, the order passed in Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999-2000 for passing fresh order of assessment has been ignored. The matter has been remanded by the appellate authority. The officer, who has issued demand notice, has not read the operative part of the appellate order. The direction has been given by the appellate forum to the assessing officer to reassess on the basis of the decision rendered in the appellate order. (d) Thus, the demand notice has been issued ignoring the appellate order and ignoring Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and in absence of reassessment order, after 1st August, 2002. The direction has been given by the appellate forum to the assessing officer to reassess on the basis of the decision rendered in the appellate order. (d) Thus, the demand notice has been issued ignoring the appellate order and ignoring Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and in absence of reassessment order, after 1st August, 2002. (xii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Voltas Ltd., East Singhbhum, as reported in (2007) 9 SCC 266 : 2007 (3) JLJR (SC) 175, at paragraphs 15 and 16 as under: “15. We also agree with the view taken in the impugned judgment that the proceedings in question were beyond limitation. It appears that against three assessment orders for the period 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, the respondent preferred three appeals i.e. JUSTA 56/97-98, 57/97-98 and 58/97-98 before the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur. The Appellate Authority passed a common order on 31-8-1998 and communicated the decision vide Memo No. 2177 dated 5-11-1998 to the assessing authority and other officers. The assessing authority was directed to make a reassessment. As per the proviso to Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, the assessing authority was supposed to complete and pass the reassessment order pursuant to the remand by 5-11-2000, two years from the date of communication of such order to the assessing authority. However, the assessment was not concluded and fresh assessment on remand was made on 27-11-2004 i.e. after more than six years of communication of the said order. Hence, it was clearly time-barred. 16. From the records, it appears that the appellate order passed on 31-8-1998 was communicated to the assessing authority vide Memo No. 2177 dated 5-11-1998. The respondent obtained a certified copy of the same in January 1999. Memo No. 204 dated 6-8-2003, as referred to by the counsel for the State is the second time communication, which was only a reminder. Thus, the appellate order having been communicated to the assessing authority vide Memo No. 2177 dated 5111998 for the purposes of limitation the period will start from 5-11-1998 and will be complete on 5-11-2000 i.e. two years from the date of communication of such order to the assessing authority. Thus, the appellate order having been communicated to the assessing authority vide Memo No. 2177 dated 5111998 for the purposes of limitation the period will start from 5-11-1998 and will be complete on 5-11-2000 i.e. two years from the date of communication of such order to the assessing authority. We, accordingly, hold that the assessment order made after remand on 27-11-2004 and the consequential demand raised in pursuance of such order of reassessment, all dated 29-11-2004 are time-barred under Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act.” (emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision and looking to the fact of the present case, the appellate order is dated 1st August, 2002 and thus reassessment proceedings ought to have been commenced and completed before expiry of the period of two years from the date of communication of the appellate order. After several years i.e. more than period of one decade, no reassessment order has ever been passed and directly demand notice dated 8th March, 2013 has been issued which is at Annexure-11 and the review application has been decided after the appellate forum has decided the appeal. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 19th February, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Review Case No. 771 of 2004, which is at Annexure-10 to the memo of this writ petition as well as we hereby quash and set aside the demand notice dated 8th March, 2013 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur, which is at Annexure-11 to the memo of this writ petition. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.