ORDER K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. - The petitioner assailed the order of assessment on the ground that the assessing officer has framed the assessment by suppressing the fact of the petitioner filing objections to the proposal notice. It is a very serious violation of a statutory provision and also the principles of natural justice. In order to verify the allegation, this Court on June 16, 2005 passed the following order : "Mr. B. Nedunchezhian, learned Government Advocate, is directed to produce the files by June 18, 2005 so as to enable this Court to find out as to whether the letter of the petitioner dated June 8, 2005 reached the assessing officer prior to passing of the assessment order. Post on June 18, 2005." As the Government Advocate has failed to produce the file on the adjourned date on June 18, 2005, the following order was passed : "............... In spite of the order dated June 16, 2005, when the matter is taken up for orders today (June 18, 2005), the learned Government Advocate for the respondent is not able to produce the file. As a last chance, the matter is adjourned to June 20, 2005 for production of files. Otherwise, adverse inference would be drawn against the assessing officer and the action of the assessing officer suppressing the letter dated June 8, 2005 and passing orders would be taken serious note of and appropriate orders will be passed against the assessing officer. ......." Today, when the matter is taken up for orders, the learned Government Advocate once again failed to produce the file, but contended that he has verified the file and that the statement of the petitioner is not correct and thereafter made some lame excuse for not producing the file. I am not able to appreciate either the stand of the Government Advocate that he perused the file and satisfied about the correctness of the assessment order or the attitude of the assessing officer by keeping the file as secret without producing the same before this Court in spite of two directions were issued by this Court for production of file. In order to verify whether the respondent has received the objections filed by the petitioner to the proposal notice, as contended by them, and if that be so, the order without considering the objections raised has to be set aside so as to enable the assessing authorities to proceed further only, this Court directed for production of file. But the act of the Government Advocate and the attitude of the assessing officer keeping in secret the assessment file without producing the same for perusal of the court cannot be appreciated and rather it constrained this Court to take an adverse inference against the assessment order and accept the contention of the petitioner that he has filed the objections to the proposal notice in time and that has not been considered. Hence, the assessment order impugned in this writ petition is set aside. Before parting with this order, I am of the view that the attitude of the assessing officer cannot be appreciated. It is the case of the Government Advocate that on each of the two occasions he has duly instructed the assessing officer to produce the file before this Court/to him for court's scrutiny. In spite of that, the assessing officer has not allowed the Government Advocate to produce the file and took away the file after showing to him. For the action of the assessing officer, the court would have taken the contempt proceedings. The assessing officer is performing the quasi-judicial function and her performance is judiciously reviewable by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the court orders for certain files, it is the duty of the assessing officer to produce the files before this Court. The attitude of the assessing officer above referred would clearly prove that the assessing officer is passing indiscriminate orders to her whims and fancies. The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department and the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department are hereby directed to take appropriate action for the dilly-dallying of the respondent-assessing officer and in the view of this Court, the officer may be kept outside the assessment circle of the department. With this observation, the writ petition is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is closed. Writ petition allowed.