JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents in the Taxation Department. 2. The petitioner was subjected to an assessment u/s. 36 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short AVAT Act of 2003) read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. As per the order of assessment dated 02.06.2017, the petitioner was imposed a penalty u/s. 90 of the AVAT Act, 2003 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for having wrongly issued the delivery note by its Guwahati Depo instead of the delivery note being issued by the Head Office of the ASEB, who had floated the tender in question. Thereupon, a notice u/s. 40 of the AVAT Act, 2003 was served on the petitioner, wherein it was observed that there is a discrepancy between the purchase and the sale, which could not be explained properly and further that the goods were supplied to the ASEB by using the delivery note issued by the petitioner. In the resultant proceeding, an order dated 06.06.2018 was passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit-A, Guwahati, by which a penalty of Rs. 3,58,59,236/- was imposed on the petitioner apparently on the issue of the delivery notice being issued by the petitioner instead by the Head Office of the ASEB. 3. Against the order dated 06.06.2018 u/s. 40 of the AVAT Act, 2003 imposing the penalty of Rs. 3,58,59,236/-, as well as the reassessment of the tax, the petitioner filed a revision u/s. 82 of the AVAT Act, 2003. While entertaining the revision petition filed by the petitioner, the Joint Commissioner of Tax, Assam by the communication dated 11.10.2018 required the petitioner to deposit 25% of the total demand dues for the purpose of admitting the revision petition. It was also provided that in the event, the 25% of the total of the demand due is not paid, the revision petition would stand summarily rejected as per the AVAT Rules of 2005. 4. Being aggrieved by the communication of 11.10.2018, this writ petition has been preferred. 5. In course of his submission, Dr. It was also provided that in the event, the 25% of the total of the demand due is not paid, the revision petition would stand summarily rejected as per the AVAT Rules of 2005. 4. Being aggrieved by the communication of 11.10.2018, this writ petition has been preferred. 5. In course of his submission, Dr. A. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioner refers to the provisions of Section 82(2A) of the AVAT Act, 2003, wherein inter-alia it is provided that an application by a dealer or a person shall not be entertained by a Commissioner, unless such application is accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of minimum 25% of the disputed tax, penalty etc. Reference has also been made to the first proviso of Section 82(2A) of AVAT Act, 2003, which inter-alia provides that the Commissioner may, if he thinks fit for any reasons to be recorded in writing and subject to furnishing such security as may deem fit, admit an application with part payment or without any payment of the disputed amount of tax, including the penalty, if required with a view to mitigate any undue hardship that may be caused to the dealer or the person. 6. According to the learned senior counsel, by invoking the provisions of the first proviso to Section 82(2A) of AVAT Act, 2003, the petitioner had filed an application inter alia praying that the petitioner be exempted from paying the 25% of the demand made under the reassessment order u/s. 40 dated 6.6.2018. 7. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the authorities in the Taxation Department submits by referring to the application of the petitioner that no appropriate ground has been made for passing an order exempting the petitioner from paying the 25% of the demanded amount. 8. Heard the learned senior counsel for the parties. 9. Upon reading of Section 82(2A) of AVAT Act, 2003, it is discernible that the first paragraph of Section 82(2A) of AVAT Act, 2003 provides that the Commissioner shall not entertain an application for revision without 25% of the demanded amount being deposited. 8. Heard the learned senior counsel for the parties. 9. Upon reading of Section 82(2A) of AVAT Act, 2003, it is discernible that the first paragraph of Section 82(2A) of AVAT Act, 2003 provides that the Commissioner shall not entertain an application for revision without 25% of the demanded amount being deposited. But at the same time the second paragraph containing a proviso, provides that in the event an application is made, the Commissioner may for reasons to be recorded in writing and subject to furnishing of such security as may be deemed fit, admit an application either with part payment or without any payment of the disputed amount of the tax including the penalty. 10. A reading of the second paragraph of Section 82(2A) of AVAT Act, 2003 shows that the proviso is an exception to the first paragraph of the Section, where the Commissioner is empowered to exempt the payment of the 25% of the amount due by making an order with reasons to be recorded in writing and subject to furnishing of any such security as may be deemed fit. The provisions of the second paragraph containing the proviso being an exception to the provisions of the first paragraph, the Court is of the view that in the event an application is made by a particular person or a dealer requesting for an exemption from paying the 25% of the demand, it is incumbent upon the Commissioner to give a consideration to such application and pass a reasoned order thereon as to whether the requirement of the first paragraph for depositing the 25% of the demand due is to be exempted or partly exempted or not to be exempted. 11. The requirement of giving a reason for granting or not granting the exemption is also an indication that any such application made under the provision of the second paragraph of Section 82(2A) would necessarily have to be entertained and considered, as otherwise the requirement of giving a reason cannot be complied with. 12. 11. The requirement of giving a reason for granting or not granting the exemption is also an indication that any such application made under the provision of the second paragraph of Section 82(2A) would necessarily have to be entertained and considered, as otherwise the requirement of giving a reason cannot be complied with. 12. In the present case, as the records reveals that the petitioner had filed an application for exempting the payment of the 25% of the demanded amount, the Court is of the view that it is incumbent upon the Commissioner to give a consideration to the said application and pass a reasoned order thereon as deemed appropriate under the law and in the facts and circumstance of the case. 13. Accordingly, as agreed by the parties it is directed that the Commissioner shall consider the application of the petitioner for exemption of the payment of the 25% of the demand and pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Depending upon the order to be passed on the said application, further order may be passed by the Commissioner in the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 14. In view of what is provided hereinabove, the communication dated 11.10.2018 is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.