These three writ petitions have been preferred to challenge three different orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh dated 24.11.2006 by which Commercial Tax Officer revised the original assessment orders dated 16.02.2004 in relation to the three assessment orders which are assessment orders of 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01.

2. The facts are identical and are not in dispute. The original assessment orders for the above assessment years were passed under the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 and Bihar Electricity Duty Rules, 1949, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand, on 16.02.2004 by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Hazaribagh Circle, copies of which have been placed on record by the writ petitioner.

3. The petitioner raised several grounds and also challenged the authority of the State Government to demand and recover the electricity duty from the petitioner on various grounds. Those issues have been decided by Division Bench of this Court in writ petition being W.P.(T) No. 6163 of 2007 vide judgment dated 11.01.2007 and following the decision given in said Division Bench judgment dated 11.01.2007 passed in W.P.(T) No. 6163 of 2007, the petitioner's writ petition being W.P.(T) Nos. 645 of 2007, 656 of 2007 and 658 of 2007 were allowed vide order dated 14.02.2007, in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 11.01.2007.

4. The said judgment dated 11.01.2007 passed in W.P.(T) No. 6163 of 2007 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3450 of 2008 (State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Atibir Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., Giridih and Anr.) and connected Civil Appeals. Those appeals were allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.04.2008 and matter was remanded to this Court for deciding various issues. It appears, petitioner was not fully satisfied with relief granted to it, also preferred Civil Appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 3457 of 2008 which was decided separately by the Supreme Court vide order dated 10th April, 2008 and matter was remanded to this Court to decide two issues which we will quote at relevant place

5. After considering various aspects of the matter, the Division Bench of this Court (us) decided those writ petitions in the case of M/s. Anjaney Ferro Alloys Ltd. & ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors. which is reported in 2012(3) JLJR 399. In said decision it has been held that :-

(I) Damodar Valley Corporation was not the licensee under the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 and Rules of 1949;

(II) The Damodar Valley Corporation was the assessee and covered under the definition of the assessee given in Rule 2 (b) of the Rules of 1949;

(III) The petitioner companies are neither licensees nor assesses but obtained the registration under the Chapter -II of the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules, 1949. Their registration are of no use. They may have obtained the registration under misconception of law or wrong advice but that will not make them the assessee registered under the Rules of 1949;

(IV) The State Government has no right to recover the electricity duty from the writ petitioners who are consumers of the Damodar Valley Corporation and who are obtaining the electricity from DVC for their own use;

(V) The petitioners cannot be subjected to assessment and reassessment for the electricity duty. Therefore, any proceeding of assessment order, reassessment or opening of assessment, which is pending, is quashed. The bills or demand raised by the State Government against these petitioners for electricity duty is also quashed.

(VI) After coming into force of Electricity Act, 2003, the DVC is deemed licensee and because of the Act of 2003, the petitioners' status has not changed to assessee from non-assessee.

(VII) Section 5 of the Jharkhand Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 2011 amending Section 4 of the Act of 1948 is declared to be arbitrary as it gives power to the State Government to choose and pick up either of seller or consumer of the elect