Commissioner is wholly unacceptable, in the sense that the order should be read as a whole and not in a truncated fashion as done in the counter affidavit. Before looking into what has been said in the last paragraph of the order, it is necessary to read the entire narration, especially the unnumbered paragraph before the last paragraph. It is not only this Court has understood the order to the said effect, it is the subordinate officers of the Commissioner themselves have understood the same in such fashion. The Assistant Commissioner understood the order to be a positive direction and he was under the prima facie opinion that entire levies need to be cancelled. Apart from that, the next higher level officer, namely Joint Commissioner also did not concede to the direction contained in the order dated 26.10.2016. In the preceding paragraph of this order, I have referred to the portion of the communication wherein the Joint Commissioner has specifically stated that the order dated 26.10.2016, if followed will vitiate the legality of the issue. Despite that, it appears that on a oral direction given by the Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner had issued directions to the Assistant Commissioner on 05.06.2018 and consequently, the Assistant Commissioner has passed revised Assessment Orders. Thus, as of now the Department supports the stand taken by the dealer. On account of the departmental action, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
