ORDER R. Sudhakar, J. - The writ petition has been filed challenging the form No. 4 notice dated July 25, 2005. The undisputed facts in this case are as follows : The petitioner is an assessee under the second respondent and is engaged in manufacture of cotton yarn. For the purpose of final assessment for the assessment year 1996-97, the accounts were checked by the second respondent and the second respondent issued a revised pre-assessment notice under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in No. 489531/96-97 dated January 31, 2000. The main defect pointed out is that the assessee has not filed form "F" for a value of Rs. 5,43,138. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 5,43,138 was to be treated as outright sales and taxed at the rate of two per cent. In respect of sales of cotton yarn to exporters, the assessee/dealer filed copies of bill of lading and certificate in the form "H" for a sum of Rs. 9,29,29,460. However, for a sum of Rs. 11,70,863 form "H" was not filed and therefore it was proposed to treat the same as direct inter-State sales to be taxed at the rate of two per cent. Since no proper objections were filed, the final order of assessment was passed on February 29, 2000. As against such final assessment order, it is not clear, whether an appeal has been filed. Further, the averments in the affidavit would go to show that instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner/assessee filed a representation on June 23, 2000 for revision of the assessment order dated February 29, 2000. Thereafter, it is stated that several representations have been made on December 21, 2001, September 27, 2003, November 29, 2004 and June 1, 2005. Though copies of the representation have been filed, there is no acknowledgement even in respect of one representation. The plea of the petitioner to the department is to accept the form "H" in respect of export sale and form "F" submitted by the agent. It is stated that the second respondent issued notice on September 15, 2003 for collection of arrears of tax. It is stated that the petitioner/assessee replied to such notice requesting the authority to accept form "H" in respect of export sales and form "F" relating to actual sales made by the agent of the other State. It is stated that the second respondent issued notice on September 15, 2003 for collection of arrears of tax. It is stated that the petitioner/assessee replied to such notice requesting the authority to accept form "H" in respect of export sales and form "F" relating to actual sales made by the agent of the other State. It is stated in the petitioner's affidavit that on July 26, 2004, the second respondent issued notice stating that the assessment proceedings were passed only after giving sufficient opportunity by issuing a pre-assessment notice dated July 31, 2000 served on the petitioner on February 7, 2000. Sufficient opportunities were afforded and the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity of filing his objection within the prescribed time and therefore, final assessment order was passed on February 29, 2000 and served on the petitioner on March 11, 2000 and therefore, the request made by the petitioner in his various representations was rejected. A copy of the letter of the department said to be dated July 26, 2004 has not been marked. The above fact is set out in para 8 of the affidavit. Therefore, since the tax due has not been paid in spite of several notices and reminders the impugned notice under form No. 4 was issued. The main contention of the assessee is that form "F" and form "H" can be accepted by the authority even after passing the final assessment order. The further contention of the petitioner/assessee is that he has submitted form "H" for a turnover of Rs. 7,16,938 to the second respondent and the same was not considered and revised assessment order was not passed. Therefore, without revising such assessment, the form No. 4 notice for recovery should not be issued. On notice a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is contended by the respondents that the order of assessment has attained finality and no appeal has been filed against the order. In any event the contention of the petitioner/assessee is repelled on the following reasons : The form "H" stated to have been in possession of the petitioner/assessee has not been furnished to the department for the past seven years. No such document has been filed before this court. As regards form "F", it is contended in the counter as follows : "Issue regarding 'Form-F' for value of Rs. No such document has been filed before this court. As regards form "F", it is contended in the counter as follows : "Issue regarding 'Form-F' for value of Rs. 5,43,138 (a) During finalisation of accounts for the above year, the petitioner has filed an authenticated statement dated June 2, 1998 regarding total consignment sales as follows : --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Form 'F' filed in the year 1995-96 for the unsold stock ... Rs. 5,20,171 Form 'F' filed in the year 1996-97 ... Rs. 1,68,70,376 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total consignment sales (i.e., covered by form 'F') ... Rs. 1,73,90,547 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i.e., Transfer value of goods u/s. 6A] Consignment sales (less) ... Rs. 1,79,33,685 Total consignment sales (covered by form 'F') ... Rs. 1,73,90,547 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Form 'F' in short (i.e., not covered by form 'F') ... Rs. 5,43,138 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus, form 'F' was not submitted for transfer of goods through agent in other State for transfer value of Rs. 5,43,138. Hence, it was treated as direct inter-State sale." As regards the form "H", it is contended in the counter as follows : "Issue regarding Form 'H' for Rs. 11,70,863. (b) similarly, the petitioner has filed an authenticated statement dated June 2, 1998 regarding sales to exporters against form H declaration as follows : -------------------------------------------- Ledger balance ... Rs. 9,41,00,323 (-) Form 'H' received ... Rs. 9,29,29,460 -------------------------------------------- Form 'H' not submitted ... Rs. 11,70,863 -------------------------------------------- Based on the above statement, the then assessing officer has proposed to assess the above turnover of Rs. 11,70,863 not covered by form 'H' declarations as direct inter-State sales of cotton yarn taxable at two per cent. Hence for the aforesaid two issues the assessing officer has issued pre-assessment notice dated January 31, 2000, proposing to assess the above sales turnover of Rs. 5,43,138 not covered by form F as inter-State sales of cotton yarn taxable at two per cent and for the turnover of Rs. 11,70,863 not covered by form 'H'. The said notice was received by the petitioner on February 7, 2000. The petitioner has admitted and accepted the proposed levy of tax and penalty of the department. He has not filed any objection. In confirmation to the pre-assessment notice, the assessing officer passed an order dated February 29, 2000 under the CST Act. 11,70,863 not covered by form 'H'. The said notice was received by the petitioner on February 7, 2000. The petitioner has admitted and accepted the proposed levy of tax and penalty of the department. He has not filed any objection. In confirmation to the pre-assessment notice, the assessing officer passed an order dated February 29, 2000 under the CST Act. It was received by the assessee on March 11, 2000 along with the demand notice under form 3 (demand for tax) and form 54 for penalty. -------------------------------------- Balance of tax ... Rs. 68,561 Balance of penalty ... Rs. 85,701 -------------------------------------- Total ... Rs. 1,54,262" -------------------------------------- Therefore, it was contended that since both the forms "F" and "H" have not been submitted, the question of reconsideration under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 will not arise in the instant case. It was further contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the assessment order. In such view of the matter, it was contended that there was no basis for reconsideration of the assessment and that too after five years after the date of the assessment order. It was further submitted in para 11 of the counter thus : "It is submitted that for the balance turnover of Rs. 11,70,863 not covered by form 'H' declarations, the petitioner has stated that form H declarations to the value of Rs. 7,16,938 were filed along with his letter dated June 23, 2000 before the then assessing officer to accept the same and to pass revised order. The above-mentioned letters dated June 23, 2000 together with the form 'H' declaration said to have been filed for Rs. 7,16,938 are not received by the respondent and no proof of evidence is made available before this honourable court." Therefore, it was submitted that the various plea taken by the petitioner lacks bona fides, it is only after receiving form No. 4 notice that these contentions are made and that too on the basis of bald allegations. The petitioner's intention is to protract the litigation and avoid payment of tax. In such circumstances, the writ petition may be dismissed. The petitioner raised certain legal contentions as to why the revision of the assessment should not be made in terms of section 55 of the TNGST Act. The petitioner's intention is to protract the litigation and avoid payment of tax. In such circumstances, the writ petition may be dismissed. The petitioner raised certain legal contentions as to why the revision of the assessment should not be made in terms of section 55 of the TNGST Act. Such contention does not merit consideration in view of the factual position in the present case which has been set out in the counter-affidavit as extracted above. On going through the various contentions raised in the writ petition and the typed set of papers filed in the writ petitions, it is clear that the petitioner has not approached this court with a bona fide claim. The copies of form "H" were not filed before the authority as is evident from the counter-affidavit set out above. No proof of submitting the same has been shown to this court. The department is disputing the petitioner's claim. There is no proper explanation for not filing form "F" also. The writ petition has been filed only on the ground that the authority has not considered the claim of the revision of the assessment under section 55 of the TNGST Act. When there is no material for the authority to deal with the matters one way or other, there is no question of considering the petitioner's claim for revision of the assessment. Further, without filing appeal against the assessment order, the writ petition has been filed after long period of time based on some representation, which does not appear to have been served on the department. The so-called representations are self-serving documents, which lack bona fides and are without merit. There is no reason given for the delay in filing the writ petition. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. In any event, petitioner has not made out a prima facie case on merits. The various contentions now made are based on representations which bear no acknowledgement and are disputed by the department. They have been obviously made only to avoid payment of tax due to the department on some inadmissible technical plea. Therefore, the relief that is sought for by the writ petitioner cannot be granted. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.