ORDER MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN - The petitioner made an application under section 16D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") before the committee for consideration of the merits of the assessment made on the petitioner. The assessment years relate to 2004-05 and 2005-06. The committee rejected the prayer by remarking as follows : "The dealers were issued with notices and the same was served on them. The deviation sent by the assessing officer was rejected by the Joint Commissioner (CT), (Enforcement), Salem on March 13, 2008 on the grounds that the claims of the dealers are only after-thought and the same were not produced at the time of inspection. The dealers have also suppressed certain turnover which are available in the books. The concurrence of the Joint Commissioner (CT), Salem, under rule 15(6) of the TNGST Rules, 1959, was also obtained before implementation. Further as requested by the dealers, summons were also issued under section 54A to get information from various parties as seen from the assessment file. But, except in one case rest of the three summons were returned. The received case also failed to appear. As seen from the assessment file sufficient opportunities has been given to the dealer. Hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the applications are rejected." A perusal of section 16D of the Act shows that notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, either suo motu or on an application, the Special Committee call for and examine the records of the assessing authority in respect of any proceeding or order under sub-section (2) or (3) of section 12 or sub-section (1) or (2) of section 16. If such proceeding or order is passed in violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder or without following the principles of natural justice, the orders may be called for and scrutinised on merit, the committee has the authority to pass such orders as it deems fit including directing assessing authority to make a fresh assessment. The petitioner had preferred a petition before a Committee referring to the inspection by the Enforcement Wing on October 19, 2005 in which certain details were unearthed under D7 slips pointing out to suppression. The petitioner had preferred a petition before a Committee referring to the inspection by the Enforcement Wing on October 19, 2005 in which certain details were unearthed under D7 slips pointing out to suppression. The grievance of the petitioner therein was that the assessing authority had gone ahead with the assessment making an assessment by a mere reproduction of what was there in the proposal of the Enforcement Wing officials. Hence, there was no independent application of mind to the materials and to the reply made. The first respondent herein passed the order now impugned in the proceedings taking the view that the dealers had suppressed the turnover which are available in the books and that the Joint Commissioner had rejected the deviation proposal sent by the assessing authority; that the grounds raised by the petitioners are all after-thought and the same were not produced at the time of inspection. Going by the very contention that there was a deviation proposal from the assessing authority, considering the fact that the petitioner had challenged the assessment as an arbitrary one, as a super regional sits as a corrective mechanism either suo motu or on an application to correct assessments that are in violation of the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, whatever be the merits of the contentions of the petitioner, when the aggrieved assessee approaches the committee, it is but necessary, the committee bestows its attention to the issues raised by the petitioner, then pass an order considering the same giving reasons for either accepting or rejecting. In the context of the width of its power as given under the Act, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the respondent by merely expressing its agreement order. Accordingly, the order passed by the respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to consider the petition de novo and pass orders after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1, 1, 2 and 2 of 2009 are closed.