ORDER P. JYOTHIMANI :- Mr. R. Mahadevan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the first respondent, dated June 13, 2005 by which the second respondent has directed that the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs. 53,71,833 being the arrears of tax for which the order of attachment has already been passed in respect of the property comprised in Survey No. 54/3 at Vallam Village, Chengalpet District. By an order of assessment passed by the first respondent dated December 31, 2003, the assessing officer while rejecting the claims of exemption has directed the petitioner to pay the tax of Rs. 21,48,733 along with a penalty of Rs. 32,23,100. It was pursuant to the said order of assessment, the abovesaid order of attachment came to be passed. It is seen that as against the order of assessment passed by the second respondent, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (CT 6) in Appeal No. 98/2008. The said appeal came to be disposed of by an order dated December 2, 2008 by the appellate authority by which the appellate authority set aside the earlier order passed by the second respondent dated December 31, 2003 and directed the assessing officer to pass fresh orders permitting the assessing officer to check the accounts which shall be produced by the petitioner apart from directing the assessing officer to furnish copies of records relied on by the assessing officer to reject the claim of the petitioner and to give reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to file his objection, if any. While setting aside the assessment and levy of penalty and remanding the matter back to the assessing officer to pass fresh orders, the petitioner was also directed to produce accounts before the assessing officer and cooperate with him within three months from the date of receipt of that order. It is the case of the respondents that in spite of the said direction given by the appellate authority, the petitioner has failed to produce documents and it is stated that a notice was given on August 19, 2009 by the assessing officer in which it is stated that the petitioner was directed to produce accounts for the year 1998-99 for check and in spite of summons having been served the petitioner failed to produce accounts. It is stated that the petitioner has sought for a further period of 90 days for the purpose of production of the accounts and therefore, the said proceedings before the assessing officer, viz., the second respondent, is still pending. It is stated that on January 8, 2010, the assessing officer has supplied the copies of records as directed by the appellate authority and also granted 30 days time to the petitioner to enable him to peruse the records and furnish a detailed reply. After the petitioner furnished the said reply on perusal of the records furnished by the assessing officer, the second respondent would pass orders as per the directions of the appellate authority dated December 2, 2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that once the appellate authority has set aside the order of assessment, the attachment order already passed based on the earlier order of assessment should automatically go. But the respondents are keeping the attachment order alive which is not admissible in law. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is no more a dealer and the petitioner has closed down the industry. Further, he had not produced accounts either before the assessing officer or before the appellate authority. The petitioner is only attempting to drag on the matter and if the order of attachment is lifted possibly the petitioner would alienate the property which is the only security available for the Department for recovery of huge amount of arrears. If the order of attachment is lifted by the assessing officer then the Department will be at loss. Therefore, lifting of attachment at this point of time is not necessary. No prejudice is going to be caused if the attachment is not lifted, if really the petitioner has no intention to alienate the property. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that the proceedings of assessment are pending before the assessing officer, I am of the considered view that a direction has to be given to the assessing officer to pass order of assessment after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that the proceedings of assessment are pending before the assessing officer, I am of the considered view that a direction has to be given to the assessing officer to pass order of assessment after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. In such a view of the matter, directing the second respondent to complete the process of assessment after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as per the notice of the second respondent, the second respondent is given 30 days time from January 8, 2010 and pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that immediately on passing the assessment order, as per the order of remand made by the appellate authority dated December 2, 2008, the second respondent shall lift the order of attachment subject to the condition that the petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the assessing officer that the petitioner shall not alienate the property in question. Such affidavit of undertaking will be operative till the petitioner files appeal against the order of assessment and obtains necessary interim order within the period of limitation. It is made clear that the petitioner shall co-operate with the assessing officer in completing the order of assessment. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.