Judgment :- BAKTHAVATSALAM, J. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in TNGST No. 097214/88-89 dated January 31, 1991 and the consequential demand issued by the second respondent in R.C. 534/91 A. 3 dated March 4, 1991 and quash the proceedings dated January 31, 1991 of the first respondent and consequential proceedings dated March 4, 1991, of the second respondent and direct the first respondent to pass orders on merits on the application of the petitioner submitted on June 1, 1990. The petitioner, a dealer in automobile components reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3, 69, 959 and Rs. 3, 69, 959, respectively for the assessment year 1988-89 in the monthly return in form A-1. Since the petitioner has not produced its accounts for check, an order was made on best judgment basis on April 4, 1990. This order was served on the petitioner on June 1, 1990. The petitioner filed an application for revision of assessment under section14 of the Act and consequently the petitioner's accounts were called for and checked by the first respondent on July 31, 1990. Based on that a notice was prepared on August 16, 1990 inviting objections with reference to the application filed by the petitioner under section14 of the Act for making fresh assessment. According to the petitioner, the notice was served on January 18, 1991 and the first respondent has passed the order on January 31, 1991, stating that there is no valid reason as narrated in the said section. It is also stated that the petitioner has not filed its objections till January 31, 1991. When the writ petition came up for admission, I gave notice to the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for producing the records. Accordingly, Mr. Lokapriya, Government Advocate (Taxes) appeared before me and produced the records. I have gone through the records. No doubt, the petitioner has not filed any objections within the time granted. But what is the time granted is very important. I find a correction at the bottom of page 151 of the file produced before me. The date January 16, 1991, has been corrected as January 18, 1991, purposefully by the assessing officer. No doubt, the petitioner has not filed any objections within the time granted. But what is the time granted is very important. I find a correction at the bottom of page 151 of the file produced before me. The date January 16, 1991, has been corrected as January 18, 1991, purposefully by the assessing officer. Apart from the merits of the case, in my view, this is an important factor to be taken into consideration.Even on merits, I do not think such a summary disposal can be given by the assessing officer. In my view, the assessing officer has not understood the scope of section14 of the Act at all. A scrutiny of the file reveals that there are findings in favour of the petitioner after check of the accounts. But, however, when the final order came to be passed, the assessing officer has merely stated that it will not come under section14 of the Act. In my view, this is a glaring infirmity in the impugned order. The impugned order is set aside and the assessing officer is directed to take back the petition on file and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner pass final orders within two months from today. Since the file is before me, I think it is necessary for me to mention about the conduct of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who has made the correction. In page 151 of the file which is the notice dated August 16, 1990, though it has been signed on August 16, 1990, it seems to have been served on January 16, 1991 and subsequently it has been corrected as January 18, 1991. A public officer dealing with sales tax matters is not expected to behave in such a way and his action is wholly unjustified. Though the correction may not change the position with regard to the petitioner, i.e., the assessee has not filed objection even up to January 31, 1991, but yet as the records are before me it is necessary for me to make this observations. It is absolutely necessary for the higher-ups to take appropriate action against this officer who has made this correction purposefully. I do not understand why a notice which has been prepared on August 16, 1990 should remain in office for five months before it was served on January 18, 1991. It is absolutely necessary for the higher-ups to take appropriate action against this officer who has made this correction purposefully. I do not understand why a notice which has been prepared on August 16, 1990 should remain in office for five months before it was served on January 18, 1991. The records produced before me clearly, show that some action is necessarily to be taken by the higher-ups. The writ petition will stand allowed. In order to make the department not to repeat the same mistake, the department is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3, 000 to the petitioner, as exemplary costs. Writ petition allowed.