ORDER Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman :- The petitioner in W.P. No. 5248 of 2010 seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent dated December 1, 2009 and in W.P. No. 5249 of 2010, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated March 11, 2010 and to direct the first respondent to rectify the error as per the applications dated March 1, 2010 and March 10, 2010 of the petitioner. The petitioner has come against the assessment order passed by the first respondent in respect of the assessment year 2003-04. The petitioner herein filed their return for the assessment year 2003-04 declaring their liability under section 3H of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. A notice dated January 31, 2008, was served on the petitioner for revision of assessment proposing to levy tax under section 3J of the Act on the turnover of Rs. 16,46,55,487 on the ground that the petitioner was offering trade discounts like Quantity Purchase Scheme (QPS) thereby attracted the provisions under section 3J of the Act. The petitioner filed its reply on February 29, 2008 and furnished the details of turnover assessable under section 3H by way of resale tax. They further filed copies of trade mark certificate in respect of products carrying the registered trade mark. As far as one of the items dealt with by the petitioner sold under the name by "Mr. White" is concerned, the petitioner pointed out that the same was not under registration and hence, the sale by the petitioner was not as a holder of trade mark. The respondent served a copy of reassessment order dated December 1, 2009 assessing the entire resale turnover of Rs. 16,45,55,487 at 16 per cent without even considering the turnover of goods sold under the name "Mr. White", which was a registered trade mark to the tune of Rs. 5,09,14,039. The petitioner contends that having regard to the circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated June 27, 2002 in Acts. Cell - 1/40003/2002 on section 3J of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, that section 3J would be operated only as regards the holder of the registered trade mark, the assessment made is contrary to law and the circular issued which is binding on the respondent. Cell - 1/40003/2002 on section 3J of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, that section 3J would be operated only as regards the holder of the registered trade mark, the assessment made is contrary to law and the circular issued which is binding on the respondent. The petitioner further contends that in any event, the reassessment order suffered an error apparent on the face of the record, in so far as the respondent failed to give credit to the tax paid by the local registered dealer on the sales to the petitioner as per section 3J of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,88,75,256. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent under petition dated March 10, 2010, for rectification of denial of set-off. The petitioner further pointed out that in respect of the undisputed turnover on branded item too, the assessment had been made when the turnover relating to Mr. White alone was in dispute. However, the same was rejected under proceedings dated March 11, 2010. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner fell in error in subjecting the entire resale turnover of Rs. 16,46,55,487 under section 3J of the Act without the set-off and that the turnover for the sales effected for the brand "Mr. White" came only to Rs. 5,09,14,039. He further pointed out that the notice issued by the respondent was based on the simple premise that the trade scheme and consumer coupons given by the petitioner warranted assessment under section 3J of the Act which are totally irrelevant for the purpose of considering the applicability of section 3J of the Act. A perusal of the notice and the reassessment order passed on the rectification petition consequent on the assessment shows that the respondents had failed to take note of the credit that should have been given on the tax paid by the petitioner on its purchase while working out the liability under section 3J of the Act, quite apart from the fact that the dispute raised was with reference to sale of goods under the name of Mr. White. The discussion in the order of assessment shows that there are no discussion as to why the claim for granting credit to the tune of Rs. White. The discussion in the order of assessment shows that there are no discussion as to why the claim for granting credit to the tune of Rs. 1,88,75,256 being the tax paid to the registered dealer on the sales to the petitioner, was not considered by the assessing authority. The reasons given in the order do not indicate as to whether the provisions of section 3J was considered in the proper perspective at all. The reasons for bringing the turnover under section 3J of the Act rest on grounds which are totally irrelevant. In the background of the said facts, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the first respondent with a direction to the first respondent to consider afresh the representation made and pass orders afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner as regards the claim as per section 3J with reference to tax paid in respect of the sales effected in favour of the petitioner herein to the tune of Rs. 1,88,75,256, which the petitioner is entitled to, apart from considering the question as regards the assessability of sale of items falling under the registered trade mark as well as the items falling without registration in the background of the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.