Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings in TNGST/811725/91-92 dated 13-1-1993 of the respondent. 2. The main ground of attack against the impugned order of assessment for the year 1991-1992 is that the petitioner was not given personal hearing before passing the impugned order. It is seen that for the very same assessee in respect of earlier assessment year, in W.P. Nos. 13504, 13927 to 13929 of 1992, by an order dated 28-10-1992, Srinivasan, J. set aside the order of assessment on the ground that the petitioner was not given opportunity of personal hearing before pending the order of assessment. Though the petitioner filed its objections and sought for personal hearing before the passing of the final assessment order, which is impugned herein, by making a specific reference about the order of Srinivasan, J. in W.P. Nos. 13504 and 13927 to 13929 of 1992, setting aside the assessment order in respect of earlier assessment year for want of personal hearing, the very same assessing officer (Commercial Tax Officer, Section I, Virudhunagar) has passed the impugned order of assessment for the year 1991-1992 without giving any personal hearing to the petitioner. Excepting to narrate the objections of the petitioner, the Assessing Officer has passed the impagned order in one line as objections are overruled and I do not see any reason for the assessing Officer to over rule the objections of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Ramani, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the earlier assessment order for the earlier year passed by the very same Assessing Officer (Commercial Tax Officer, Section I, Virudhunagar) was quashed for want of personal hearing, by Srinivasan, J. in the writ petitions mentioned above and when this fact has been brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer, the assessing Officer ought not to have passed the same type of order which has been quashed by this Court. 4. Mr. Govindan, Government Advocate (Taxes), who takes notice for the Department is unable to defend the action of the respondent in passing the impugned order. 5. Considering the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, who is not able to defend the impugned order, and obviously he cannot. 4. Mr. Govindan, Government Advocate (Taxes), who takes notice for the Department is unable to defend the action of the respondent in passing the impugned order. 5. Considering the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, who is not able to defend the impugned order, and obviously he cannot. I am of the view that the impugned order has got to be set aside for the simple reason that the Assessing Officer (Commercial Tax Officer, S.I. Virudhunagar) has passed the impugned order without giving personal hearing to the petitioner, and without due regard and respect to the earlier order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos. 13504 and 13927 to 13929 of 1992. The attitude on the part of the Assessing Office, Commercial Tax Officer Section I, Virudhunagar) in not respecting the earlier order of the learned single Judge of this Court is highly contemptuous, and officers like the respondent are only liability to the Department and such of those officers have to be taken to task by the higher officials in the Department. 6. The earlier order of the learned single Judge is dated 28-10-1992 and the impugned order has been passed on 13-1-1993 by the Assessing Officer. When there is a specific order by the learned single Judge setting aside the earlier assessment order on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the assessment order, ( sic ) I am unable to understand as to how the Assessing Officer can ignore the order of the learned single Judge of this Court. Had he (Assessing Officer) followed the earlier directions of the learned single Judge given in W.P. Nos. 13504, and 13927 to 13929/92 certainly the filing of the writ petitions like the present one could have been avoided. It is true that in matters of taxation, the assessee should be directed to resort to alternative remedy as provided for under the Act, but in the instant case the issue has already been decided by a learned single Judge of this Court just about three months back and consequently setting aside the orders of assessment for want of opportunity of personal hearing. In view of that the impugned order is set aside. 7. For all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed the impugned order of assessment is set aside. In view of that the impugned order is set aside. 7. For all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed the impugned order of assessment is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 3,000 as costs to the petitioner.