ORDER N. K. Patil J. - The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the orders of reassessment dated June 29, 2006 passed by the first respondent under section 39(1) of the Act, for the periods April, 2005 to November 2005, vide annexures D to D7 and also the notices of demand dated July 7, 2006 issued by the second respondent in form 180 in consequence to the orders of reassessment dated June 29, 2006, passed under the provisions of the Act vide annexures E to E7, has presented the instant writ petition. The petitioner is a public limited company represented by its manager - taxation. The only grievance of the petitioner as made out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the petitioner has received notices regarding reassessment from the first respondent herein and in pursuance of the same, he has filed detailed objection on March 17, 2006 vide annexure C requesting the first respondent to grant personal hearing in the matter before any adverse orders could be passed. In spite of filing the detailed objections, the first respondent has not afforded reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the reassessment orders, without conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and consequently, demand notices have been issued by second respondent. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to redress his grievance before this court, by way of filing this writ petition, assailing the correctness of the impugned reassessment orders and demand notices, on the ground that, if an opportunity has been afforded to him, he might have substantiated his case that, the subject-matter involved is directly covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court dated April 5, 2006 passed in STA No. 24 of 2005 and in view of not affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner by the first respondent, he could not place reliance of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court as stated supra. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. After careful perusal of the reassessment orders passed by the first respondent it emerges that the first respondent has proceeded to pass the said orders without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. After careful perusal of the reassessment orders passed by the first respondent it emerges that the first respondent has proceeded to pass the said orders without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has categorically stated in the objections that, personal hearing may be given to him to substantiate his case. But the first respondent has not considered the said request made by the petitioner in the objections dated March 17, 2006. In view of non-considering the objections filed by the petitioner and not conducting the proper enquiry in strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, if the first respondent has afforded an opportunity to the petitioner, he might have placed the judgment of the Division Bench of this court as referred above and substantiated his case regarding the liability of payment of tax and also in view of gross violation of principles of natural justice, I am of the considered view that, at any stretch of imagination, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained and they are liable to be set aside. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part. The impugned orders of reassessment dated June 29, 2006 passed by the first respondent under section 39(1) of the Act, for the periods April, 2005 to November, 2005 vide annexure D to D7 and also the notices of demand dated July 7, 2006 issued by the second respondent in form 180 in consequence to the orders of reassessment dated June 29, 2006, passed under the provisions of the Act vide annexures E to E7 are hereby set aside. Matter stands remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration afresh, with a direction to take appropriate decision, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and dispose of the same, in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court dated July 5, 2006, in STA No. 24 of 2005 and the stand taken by the respondents, in strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for the respondents, within three weeks from today.