Judgment 1. The petitioner-Nalanda Xray and Scan Research Centre of C. W. J. C. No. 12106 of 2002 is a partnership firm and Dr. S. N. Prasad (petitioner of C W. J. C. No. 12842 of 2002) and his wife Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Prasad (petitioner of C. W. J. C. No. 12105 of 2002) are partners of the said firm. The points involved in all the three cases being the same, they have been heard together finally at the stage of admission and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The admitted fact is that the respondent-income-tax authorities conducted a search and seizure operation on the premises of Nalanda Xray and Scan Research Centre, Patna, as well as the residence of Dr. S. N. Prasad, and his wife, Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Prasad, on April 10, 1994. During the course of search, cash, gold ornaments, chemicals and other documents were seized in the joint names of Dr. S. N. Prasad, and his wife, Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Prasad. They approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of the cases for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1995-96 u/s. 245C of the Income-tax Act (for short "the Act") and the Settlement Commission (IT and WT), Additional Bench, Calcutta, vide its order dated January 21, 1998, annexed as annexure 1 in all the writ applications, determined the total income and tax liability and directed the Assessing Officer (for short "the A. O.") to verify the correctness of the calculation of tax on total income and to charge interest as per the direction contained in that order. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer informed the Settlement Commission by letter dated December 12, 1998, about the tax payable by the petitioners, details whereof are given in annexure 2 to all the writ applications. It appears that the Department moved the Settlement Commission under sec. 154 of the Act for rectification of the interest under Section 243B of the Act determined by the Settlement Commission, which was dismissed on March 26, 2002. On July 10, 2002, the Assessing Officer sent a communication to all the three petitioners separately asking them to furnish evidence in regard to the payment of tax along with the interest payable thereupon within seven days of the receipt of the letter in accordance with the direction of the Settlement Commission dated March 12, 1998. Thereafter, the petitioners furnished the details regarding payment of tax. Thereafter, the petitioners furnished the details regarding payment of tax. Not being satisfied with the assertion made on behalf of the petitioners, the Assessing Officer sent demand notices with regard to the aforesaid years directing them to make the payment within the time specified therein and furnish evidence in support of the same. The aforesaid demand notices were sent along with the letters dated August 12, 2002, in the case of Nalanda Xray and Scan Research Centre and August 27, 2002, in the other cases, copies of which have been appended as annexure "7" series in all the three cases. 3. The said demand notices have been challenged by the petitioners in all the three cases on the ground that once the Settlement Commission has determined the tax and the interest payable thereon and the Assessing Officer made the calculation in terms of the said order vide anneuxre 2 in all the three cases, and thereafter the petitioners made the payment, the Assessing Officer subsequently cannot issue a further demand notice with regard to the said period in pursuance of the order of the Settlement Commission. 4. The stand of the Department, on the other hand, is that the calculation of the income-tax and interest was made in pursuance of the order of the Settlement Commission on August 9, 2002, and, thereafter, communications were sent to the petitioners by office letters dated August 12, 2002, and August 27, 2002, along with the demand notices u/s. 156 of the Act. Calculation of the interest under Secs. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act has been made in accordance with the directions contained in the orders of the Settlement Commission. Annexure 2 of all the three cases was only an information sent by the Assessing Officer to the Settlement Commission informing about the tax payable by the petitioners. That was not a demand notice and as such there was no question of the petitioners paying the tax and interest in terms of the orders of the Settlement Commission. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the stand taken by the petitioners in all the three cases is devoid of any substance. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the stand taken by the petitioners in all the three cases is devoid of any substance. It is an admitted position that the petitioners approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of their cases and the Settlement Commission fixed the amount of tax as well as interest payable by the petitioners thereon u/s. 245D(4) of the Act and, thereafter, the petitioners were asked to show evidence as to whether they had deposited the amount of tax and interest thereon under the orders of the Settlement Commission or not and, thereafter, they filed a reply and not being satisfied with the reply, the demand notices were sent to the petitioners in terms of the orders of the Settlement Commission. The earlier letters of the Assessing Officer to the Settlement Commission as contained in annexure 2 to all the three cases, were not demand notices in terms of the orders of the Settlement Commission. Accordingly, no case for quashing the impugned demand notices is made out as the same are in terms of the orders of the Settlement Commission. 6. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the demand notices are not in conformity with the orders of the Settlement Commission. This court will not go into the said question, which requires verification of factual matters. However, the petitioners are not remediless. They can approach the authority u/s. 154 of the Act for rectification of the mistake, if any, in the demand notices. 7. In the result, all the three writ applications are dismissed with the aforesaid observation.