ORDER R. SUDHAKAR :- The writ petition No. 14086 of 2005 is filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for records of the respondent in TNGST 0560206/2003-2004 dated March 31, 2005 made under section 12 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and quash the same. Writ Petition No. 14087 of 2005 is filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for records of the respondent in CST 36559/2003-2004 dated March 31, 2005 made under section 12 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and quash the same. The petitioner is engaged in the business of selling audio cassettes, CDs, DVDs and VCDs. The petitioner - company is an assessee registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The head office is at Mumbai registered in the State of Maharashtra under the Central Sales Tax Act as well as under the local tax Act. The company has regional offices at Chennai, Delhi and Kolkata. The regional offices are assessees under the respective State Sales Tax Act. In the course of business, it is stated that the recorded audio cassettes, CDs, DVDs and VCDs are sent from the head office at Mumbai to the regional offices for further sales in retail. It is a specific case of the petitioner that insofar as the Chennai regional office is concerned, there is no local purchase of blank audio cassettes, CDs, DVDs and VCDs. The assessments with regard to the regional offices were completed up to 2002-2003 and the returns and accounts were submitted for assessment for the year 2003-2004. The petitioner returned a total turnover of Rs. 1,43,71,106.29 and taxable turnover at Rs. 1,38,07,547.73. The respondent - Department took up the assessment and issued summons dated August 4, 2004 for production of accounts. The summons were served on the petitioner on August 9, 2004 to appear in person and produce the books of account on August 23, 2004. The petitioner by letter dated August 20, 2004 requested time up to December, 2004 stating that all the books of accounts were sent to the head office at Mumbai for internal and external audit and for preparing the balance sheet. This request was made on the ground that the company is following centralized accounting pattern. The petitioner by letter dated August 20, 2004 requested time up to December, 2004 stating that all the books of accounts were sent to the head office at Mumbai for internal and external audit and for preparing the balance sheet. This request was made on the ground that the company is following centralized accounting pattern. On September 16, 2004 a second summons was issued calling upon the petitioner to produce the accounts on September 30, 2004. The petitioner once again requested for further time by letter dated September 30, 2004. The respondent issued a final summons dated October 4, 2004 fixing the date of hearing October 20, 2004 for production of books of account. By letter dated October 11, 2004, the petitioner informed the respondent that the then local office accountant was bereaved due to the death of his mother and the other accountant Mr. Sengupta was not available on account of some family ceremony and medical check up. The petitioner sought for time till the end of November, 2004. However, on November 26, 2004 and November 29, 2004, the respondent issued a pre-assessment notices stating that the assessment will be done on the basis of the best judgment. On receipt of pre-assessment notices dated November 26, 2004 and November 29, 2004, respectively, the petitioner's authorised representative Mr. Sengupta appeared before the respondent with all books of accounts, balance sheet, etc. On January 7, 2005 another notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to appear on January 25, 2005. According to the petitioner, petitioner's authorised representative Mr. Sengupta appeared before the respondent on January 19, 2005 with books of account and other documents and submitted it. On January 27, 2005, Mr. Sengupta along with another accountant Mr. Ganapathy appeared before the respondent with records and documents and explained the transaction and sought for further time. As regards the plea of branch transfers, refuting local purchase and sale, petitioner filed original form F and extract of form 13 register. It is further stated that on February 2, 2005, the said Shri Ganapathy appeared before the respondent - Department and pleaded for some time till the accounts are finalized at Mumbai head office. Thereafter, on February 18, 2005 another pre-assessment notice was issued. In that pre-assessment notice, it is clearly stated that on the earlier occasion, Mr. Sengupta, the authorised representative, was present and produced records. Thereafter, on February 18, 2005 another pre-assessment notice was issued. In that pre-assessment notice, it is clearly stated that on the earlier occasion, Mr. Sengupta, the authorised representative, was present and produced records. In the last of the notice, it is stated that several other documents are yet to be received and certain details required by the Department have not been provided. According to the petitioner, the Department, while issuing notice one after another, was aware of the petitioner's plea that many records are at Mumbai held up due to centralized audit and accounting resulting in some delay in finalizing the assessment in the present case. The plea of the petitioner is a bona fide one. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did comply with the requests of the Department and furnished documents and sought for time to produce the balance sheet and other statutory records. This is evident from the letter dated March 5, 2005 addressed to the respondent - Commercial Tax Officer. It is stated therein that the petitioner did not purchase any goods in the State of Tamil Nadu. All the purchases were made by the head office at Mumbai and they were periodically transferred to the regional office at Chennai as well as the other regional offices at Delhi and Kolkata. It is also stated that they have forwarded a copy of the pre-assessment notice to the head office at Mumbai for giving a proper explanation and clarity the Department's doubt with the help of a Chartered Accountant. It was specifically pointed out that the pre-assessment notice is based on the total amounts/figures/details available in the balance sheet which will not be applicable to the assessee at Chennai. Hence, the petitioner requested for some more time, (i.e.), till end of March, 2005, the end of the financial year, to give their explanation, stating that the entire account would have been reconciled by then. This request found favour with the Department initially. Based on the request dated March 5, 2005 made by the petitioner, the respondent informed the petitioner that further time is granted up to March 28, 2005 on which date a representative of the petitioner appeared. He also appeared on March 29, 2005 and stated that the relevant records will be produced immediately after the end of the financial year. On April 1, 2005, Mr. He also appeared on March 29, 2005 and stated that the relevant records will be produced immediately after the end of the financial year. On April 1, 2005, Mr. Sengupta, the authorised representative of the petitioner, appeared at the office of the respondent. The respondent - officer, however, was not present. In the meanwhile, the final order was passed on March 31, 2005 confirming the proposal on the basis of the best judgment. The respondent demanded a huge amount as tax together with surcharge and additional sales tax. In effect, the entire turnover as per balance sheet was taken, rejecting the turnover submitted. The writ petitions have been filed challenging the said assessment orders, primarily on the ground that the orders of assessment are contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules and therefore, without jurisdiction and the entire proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice and arbitrary in nature as the petitioner was not given sufficient and reasonable opportunity and time to provide records including statutory records to substantiate the plea that the turnover stated in the notice is erroneous and consequently the turnover determined as per the pre-assessment notice and the order is bad. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit reiterating the Department's stand. The request of the petitioner seeking time, the appearance of Mr. Sengupta, the authorised representative of the petitioner, is not in dispute. It is pointed out that sufficient time was granted to produce books of accounts and records. The petitioner did not choose to produce the same in time. It is the stand of the respondent - Department that the petitioner did not take steps to segregate the transaction of other branches and clarify the transaction pertaining to Chennai branch. The specific case of the respondent - Department is that the books of account have not been properly furnished and explained and therefore, the respondent - Department had to resort to best judgment method of assessment. The learned counsel for the respondent - Department submits that if the assessee or his authorised representative had taken pains to explain the turnover of the Chennai region by excluding the transaction of other regional offices as well as the head office by cogent material, certainly the assessing officer would have approached the issue on the basis of the records. The learned counsel for the respondent - Department submits that if the assessee or his authorised representative had taken pains to explain the turnover of the Chennai region by excluding the transaction of other regional offices as well as the head office by cogent material, certainly the assessing officer would have approached the issue on the basis of the records. The non-submission of the relevant records, forced the respondent - authorities to adopt the best judgment assessment method. At the time of final hearing of the case, Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned senior counsel appearing for Mrs. Lakshmi Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner - company has its head office at Mumbai and regional offices at Chennai, Delhi and Kolkata. All the purchases were made at the head office at Mumbai and they were periodically transferred to the regional offices. Insofar as the Chennai is concerned, there is no local purchase of the goods. The goods that are transferred from the head office are sold in retail. In support of the said contention and based on the statutory record, it is pointed out that the sales statement for the period of 2003-04 of Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi and Kolkata, were available to disprove the Department's stand. The assessment order passed in Delhi under the provision of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, the assessment order passed in Bombay under the provision of the Bombay General Sales Tax Act, the assessment order passed in Kolkata under the provisions of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act and the assessment orders passed under the Central Sales Tax Act were available and the copies of the same were produced. These records were kept in the head office at Mumbai for the purpose of finalization of the accounts. To segregate and show the transactions pertaining to the Chennai branch alone, the petitioner sought for sufficient time and that has been clearly stated in the letter dated March 5, 2005. Similar requests were made earlier by the petitioner, but for one or other reason the respondent - Department refused to grant sufficient time and notices were issued in quick succession. The respondent - authority did not allow the assessee reasonable time to mobilize all the records from the head office. Similar requests were made earlier by the petitioner, but for one or other reason the respondent - Department refused to grant sufficient time and notices were issued in quick succession. The respondent - authority did not allow the assessee reasonable time to mobilize all the records from the head office. In view of the short period of time granted for every hearing, the petitioner was put to great hardship and prejudice as they could not comply with the Department's request in time. The request was bona fide and it was because of the time taken at the head office to prepare the balance sheet. This is not deliberate or intentional delay on the part of the petitioner. As has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, prima facie as per the statutory records, the head office and the regional offices are assessed separately at the different regions in the respective States, including the Central Sales Tax Act. If that be so, the respondent - Department has to consider the plea of the petitioner that the turnover insofar as the Chennai region will not include the sales turnover relatable to other regions. This relevant and vital fact will have to be considered at the time of finalisation of the assessment. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel Mrs. Lakshmi Sriram appearing for the petitioner, the non-production of records was only due to the preparation of balance sheet at the head office at Mumbai and therefore, the petitioner requested for reasonable time to produce records, but it was not heeded to by the respondent - Department. Instead, the hearing was posted at short intervals thereby depriving the petitioner of sufficient opportunity to represent their case and produce the records. When the relevant materials and records were available in the head office at Mumbai and the assessee seeks time to show the transaction pertaining to the Chennai branch alone, the respondent - Department should have granted reasonable time to produce the records, particularly, when the assessee has shown inclination and co-operated with the Department by producing certain records readily available with them. The documents that have been furnished before this court prima facie go to show that each regional office is a separate and distinct entity and assessed separately. The documents that have been furnished before this court prima facie go to show that each regional office is a separate and distinct entity and assessed separately. This vital fact should be gone into by the respondent - Department on the merits of the petitioner's claim at the time of assessment. There cannot be overlapping of turnover of different assessee. In the present case, only on the ground that the relevant documents were not produced, the respondent - Department proceeded to finalise the assessment on the basis of the best judgment method. The failure to, grant sufficient time and opportunity to produce records is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and the assessment orders passed without considering the relevant statutory records and documents will amount to denial of sufficient opportunity and will amount to violation of principles of natural justice. The assessment order has been passed, without considering the relevant factors and therefore, the orders suffer from vice of non-application of mind to relevant factors and therefore, deserve to be set aside. Even from the statement of the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the respondent - Department had proceeded on the best judgment method only on the ground that sufficient records and documents have not been produced. The petitioner, however, has given sufficient reason for non-production of records and this appears to be justified and a bona fide plea. The authority ought to have granted further time sought for. In any event, before closing the assessment, a specific request was made prior to March 31, 2005 for hearing and time to produce the records at the end of the financial year and such request was not considered. Hence, the assessment order has been passed in haste without granting opportunity and without considering relevant records. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the orders of assessment in both the cases, which are challenged, are set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and since no opportunity was given to produce records, the matters are remitted back to the Commercial Tax Officer/respondent for reconsideration on the merits. The petitioner will be entitled to produce all records and materials that may be available for the purpose of effectively concluding the assessment proceeding. Both the writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.