JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The controversy in this case lies whether one Caterpillar Bulldozer, bearing Machine Serial No. 9EMO8099, was subjected to sale by the petitioner Company, which sale was concealed by it, so as to make it liable to the sales tax and penalty thereon, which was assessed by the Assessing Authority, i.e., the respondent Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hazaribagh, by the assessment order dated 05.07.2014, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority, and in revision, the Commercial Taxes Tribunal (herein after referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), interfered with the penalty portion, modifying the assessment order, vide Judgement dated 26.9.2016 passed in Hz. 18 of 2016, and order dated 17.01.2018 passed on an application for review of the said Judgment, holding that at the place of penalty, the petitioner shall be liable to pay the interest @ 5% p.m., on the assessment of sales tax. 3. The petitioner herein is engaged in the mining business having its registered office at Dhanbad, and is also registered under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, (herein after referred to as ‘JVAT Act’). The petitioner was allotted some mining work by NTPC at Hazaribagh, where also it got registered under the JVAT Act, and transferred its three bulldozers from Dhanbad to Hazaribagh. Somehow or other, the work was not carried out at Hazaribagh, and the petitioner returned back its two bulldozers to Dhanbad, whereas one bulldozer machine was taken to Bankura, in West Bengal, where the petitioner was allotted some another work. While taking the bulldozer machine to Bankura, the petitioner generated a Road Permit, but since no Form-F for stock transfer was generated, the liability of tax was imposed upon the petitioner treating it to be a sale, and concealment thereof by the petitioner, as NIL return was filed. Subsequently, the machine was taken back by the petitioner from Bankura to Dhanbad, under a Road Permit generated by him, though this fact was not brought to the notice of the assessing authority. The assessment order clearly shows that due to the fact that even though the Road Permit was generated by the petitioner but no Form-F was generated, it was presumed that the machine had been sold by the petitioner Company. The assessment order clearly shows that due to the fact that even though the Road Permit was generated by the petitioner but no Form-F was generated, it was presumed that the machine had been sold by the petitioner Company. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no actual sale of the machine and the machine is still lying with the petitioner. 4. Admittedly, the assessment order, the appellate order as well as the revisional order have been passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner to prove the fact that the machine was never sold, and is still lying with the petitioner, and the liability of tax has been imposed upon the petitioner only on the basis of the aforesaid documents. 5. In the facts of this case, we remand back the matter to the Assessing Authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hazaribagh, to physically verify whether the aforesaid machine is still in the possession of the petitioner or not. If it is found that the machine is still in the possession of the petitioner, this would show that there was no sale of the machine by the petitioner Company, and consequently, there is no question of any concealment of sale. The assessing authority shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, upon physical verification of the machine, along with its documents. 6. As a result of this remand, we keep the assessment order, the appellate order and the revisional order passed by the Tribunal, under abeyance, until the reassessment order is passed by the Assessing Authority. Needless to say, that the Assessing Authority shall pass the order afresh, without being prejudiced by the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. The orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal shall stand revived only in case it is found by the Assessing Authority that the machine in question was actually sold by the petitioner to a third party. 7. We expect that the final decision shall be taken by the Assessing Authority within a period of three months from the date of production of this order. 8. This writ petition is disposed of with the direction as above.