1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).Nos.4056 to 4059 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2011 Hotel Sea View ... Petitioner in all Wps East Car Street, Kanyakumari. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondent in all WPs Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writs of Certiorari to call for the records in impugned revision notice in TNTL 02962/2006-07, 02962/2007-08, 02962/2008-09, and 02962/2009-10, dated 25.03.2011 from the files of the respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Aparna Nandakumar (for all WPs) For Respondents: Mr.Herold Singh, Govt.Advocate (for all WPs) COMMON ORDER By consent, these Writ Petitions are taken up together and decided by a common order. 2. All these Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the revision notices issued to them by the Commercial Tax Department. 3. Though they have raised many grounds in the Writ Petitions, their main apprehension is that the respondent may pass orders behind their back without giving any opportunities at all. They would also contend in the impugned orders itself, the respondent has clearly stated that if the petitioner failed to file objections within the time stipulated by them, then they will pass further orders without any further intimation to the petitioner, which would mean that they will pass orders behind their back. Aggrieved by the orders of the respondent, these Writ Petitions are filed. 4. Mr.Herold Singh, the learned Government Advocate would only contend that after all, it is only a show cause notice and the petitioner will be given sufficient opportunities including personal hearing before any order is being passed which is available under the Act. In any view of the matter, it is not a final order and it is only a show cause notice and the petitioner can submit their explanations within the time stipulated by the respondent. Hence, at this stage, these Writ Petitions are premature and liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard both parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that these impugned notices are only calling upon the petitioner to submit their explanations or objections with regard to the proposed revisions. In this connection, the apprehension of the petitioner is that in the last sentence of the notice, the respondent has stated that if the objection is not filed within the time, they will pass orders without any further intimation. This they would contend that under guise of 'without further intimation', they will not be given opportunities to defend their case or seek any documents to put forward their case and without personal hearing, the respondent may pass final order. This Court feels that it is only an apprehension of the petitioner. 7. First of all, it is to be understood that the notices have been issued calling upon them to file their objections and the first and foremost duty of the petitioner is that they should submit their explanations within the time stipulated by the respondent. Even in that objection itself, he may seek for documents, if necessary, also seek for a personal enquiry before the authorities concerned. If it is denied or ignored by the respondent, then only, any cause of action would arise. However, nothing has happened so far in the case on hand. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the respondent to seek for personal hearing and the authority normally will give necessary personal hearing or opportunities to the petitioner to explain their position and then only, orders will be passed. Suffice to say that the authorities will follow the due procedures as contemplated under the Act. Hence, these Writ Petitions, at this stage, are premature and not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as the time expires tomorrow, (08.04.2011), the petitioner may be permitted give time to file their objections. Thus, the petitioner is permitted to give their objections on or before 15.04.2011 and the respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders after giving sufficient opportunities to the petitioner. With the above directions and observations, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR ssm To The Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 12895: 4CC'S TO MR.APARNA NANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE, SR: 12646 TO 12649: DM:2011::APRIL:07::: 2P:7C:: W.P.(MD).Nos.4056 to 4059 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/