ORDER M. JAICHANDREN, J. - This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to return the cheques of Indian Bank, Sivakasi, collected by the second respondent, on October 8, 2009, in cheque No. 985128, for Rs. 1 lakh, in cheque No. 985129 for Rs. 1 lakh, in cheque No. 985130 for Rs. 1 lakh and in cheque No. 985131 for Rs. 45,906. It has been stated that the petitioner is a registered dealer on the files of the first respondent. While so, on October 8, 2009, the second respondent, issued the certificate of registration in form D, issued under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the certificate in form B issued under section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which are effective from April 15, 2009. It has also been stated that earlier the firm by name "Vanitha Agencies" was a registered dealer, having the TIN No. 3329630837 and CST. No. 511606. Due to certain family arrangement, the said "Vanitha Agencies" stopped its business and fresh registration had been obtained by the present petitioner on a fresh constitution of the firm. Accordingly, TIN No. 33746022269, had been allotted to the present petitioner by name "Vanitha Agencies". As such, the petitioner is carrying on business of buying and selling fire works, including coloured matches, liable to be taxed at the rate of 12.5 per cent, falling under serial No. 35 of Part C of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioners had opted to pay the tax under section 3(4) of the Value Added Tax Act, inasmuch as the sale of taxable goods for a year will be less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Accordingly, they were filing their returns in form K, as per rule 7(1)(d) of the Value Added Tax Rules. The petitioner had filed return up to the month of September, 2009 and paid the taxes on the disclosed turnover. While so, on October 8, 2009, there was an inspection by the office of the second respondent, under instructions from the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli. They had verified the account books and the related documents, including the purchase bills and the sale bills. At the time of the inspection, the invoices issued by the present firm contained the old TIN number, which was not correct. They had verified the account books and the related documents, including the purchase bills and the sale bills. At the time of the inspection, the invoices issued by the present firm contained the old TIN number, which was not correct. However, at the time of the verification, it was found that the turnover as per the said invoices raised containing the old TIN number were tallied as per the books and it was found that they had been fully disclosed in the returns for which taxes were paid. However, the second respondent, assuming that there was suppression of facts, had directed the petitioner to pay the tax on the turnover of Rs. 27,67,244 at 12.5 per cent interest, amounting to Rs. 3,45,906, being the sales turnover up to October 7, 2009. They have also collected four cheques of the Indian Bank, Sivakasi, on the same day, along with the composition fee of Rs. 2,000. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to demand and collect any amount of tax, inasmuch as he is not the "assessing authority", as defined under section 2(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the collection of the amount by the second respondent by way of the cheques, issued by the petitioner during the time of inspection, on October 8, 2009, is without the authority of law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further stated that it is the first respondent, who has the jurisdiction to make necessary orders of assessment to collect the tax, under section 22 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2006. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this court, under article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated October 27, 2009, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified time fixed by this court, after giving an opportunity of the hearing to the petitioner. He had also prayed that till the second respondent disposed of the representation of the petitioner, dated October 27, 2009, the second respondent may be directed not to deposit the cheques issued by the petitioner on October 8, 2009. Mr. Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that he did not have any objection for this court passing such an order. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated October 27, 2009 on merits, and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the second respondent is also directed not to deposit the cheques bearing cheque Nos. 985128, 985129, 985130, 985131, before disposing of the representation of the petitioner, dated October 27, 2009, as directed by this court. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.