ORDER A. R. TIWARI, J. - Shri K. G. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Kulshreshta, learned Additional Advocate-General, who appears on advance copy to oppose the admission of the petition and prayer of grant of ad interim stay, for the respondents. They are heard at length. Questioned as to how 36 petitioners, recipients of notices to pay advanced tax, could file one petition when facts are seemingly not exactly similar and consequently the scrutiny is likely to be dissimilar. The counsel for the petitioners promptly limited the grievance to petitioner No. 1 (M/s. Manwani Traders) only and prayed for delinking the case of the remaining 35 petitioners for being agitated through separate petitions if they so elect. This prayer was not opposed. Hence this petition is treated to be confined only to the first petitioner and is heard only to that extent. This petition has a background. Entry Tax Act (52 of 1976), was enacted to levy and collect entry tax on goods like sugar, cloth, tobacco, etc. The petitioner No. 1 felt, like other dealers, that it was not liable to pay sales tax on the linchpin of exemption and as such it was not liable to pay the entry tax. The Division Bench of this Court heard number of writ petitions challenging the vires of the Act as well as the propriety of levying and collecting the taxes. These petitions were finally dismissed holding that there was no immunity from payment of sales tax or entry tax. After the aforesaid orders, respondent No. 4 issued the notice to petitioner No. 1 to pay the advance tax as required under the law. The petitioner No. 1 felt dissatisfied by such a demand notice and prayed for its quashment in this writ petition presented under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for petitioner No. 1 submitted before me as under : (a) That the petitioner is yet to be served with the notice in terms of form XII-C, rule 28-A of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 as inserted by Notification dated March 6, 1968, effective from March 22, 1968. (b) The notice as impugned in this petition suffers from the vice of lesser duration as envisaged by the law. (b) The notice as impugned in this petition suffers from the vice of lesser duration as envisaged by the law. It is contended that the notice should be of 30 days rather than of 7 days, and as such the notice merits to be mortalised. (c) The petitioner on proper notice and demand, has a right to approach the Commissioner under section 22(4-A) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 as substituted with effect from October 1, 1978. Shri Kulshreshta submits that the aforesaid contentions are non-meritorious and so far the respondent No. 2 has not issued any notice strictly in terms of the rule 28-A as contemplated in form XII-C. He, therefore, submits that the petition is an exercise in futility. Rule 28-A(3) provides as under : "The tax demanded in the notice in Form XII-C shall be payable within 7 days from the date of the service of the notice." Form XII-C as inserted by notification dated March 6, 1968 and made effective from March 23, 1968 provides for a notice after computation of the amount to be paid in accordance with the provisions of the law. It is after computation that the demand shall be made in terms of section 22-A of the aforesaid Act and the person concerned shall be required to comply with such a notice within 7 days after the receipt thereof. Now that the counsel for the respondents submits that computation is yet to be made, quantification is yet to be done and the notice in terms of form XII-C is yet to be forwarded, nothing remains for further scrutiny in this case. The grievance of the petitioner on issuance of the notice without computation and quantification is not well-founded and the aforesaid notice as assailed in the petition is totally inconsequential. The respondents are, therefore, left free to send to petitioner No. 1 the proper notice in form XII-C in terms of rule 28-A. The petitioner may before or after such a notice approach the Commissioner (respondent No. 1) for extension of time or permission to pay by instalments as may be deemed necessary, in terms of section 22(4-A) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Once such a request is made, the respondent No. 1 shall decide the same in accordance with the merits of the matter and provisions of the law. Once such a request is made, the respondent No. 1 shall decide the same in accordance with the merits of the matter and provisions of the law. This aspect is left to the discretion of respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 thus suffers no prejudice on the basis of the notice as impugned in this petition. Ultimately, after hearing the parties, it is found to be a case of "much ado about nothing". The aforesaid statement on behalf of the respondents and the clarificatory note now satisfies petitioner No. 1. In the result, this petition relating to petitioner No. 1 stands finally disposed of with observations as above, but without any order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.