Judgment :- 1. Heard. The first writ petition is filed by M/s.Buhari Sons Private Limited, challenging the order of the third respondent in issuing the Final Warrant Notice, dated 9.3.2007 as well as the Demand Notice dated 6.3.2007 and also for a further direction to forbear the respondents from demanding any property tax over and above a sum of Rs.3653.85. The said writ petition was admitted on 11.6.2007. Even before that, this court by an interim order, dated 15.3.2007 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,25,000/-calculated at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per half year starting from 2/1998-1999 to 2/2006-2007 within eight weeks as a condition precedent for stay. 2. Subsequently, W.P.No.9846 of 2007 came to be filed by M/s.Hotel Imperial, challenging the Final Warrant Notice issued by the third respondent, dated 9.3.2007 as well as the demand notice dated 6.3.2007. W.P.No.9872 of 2007 was also filed by the same hotel, challenging the final warrant notice, dated 9.3.2007 and demand notice, dated 6.3.2007 and for further direction to forbear the respondents from demanding any property tax over and above a sum of Rs.5,839.60. In these two writ petitions, while granting interim stay, this court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.7.5 lakhs for both cases, failing which interim stay was directed to be vacated. 3. Subsequently, all these three writ petitions were grouped together. In respect of the interim applications, this court by an order dated 11.6.2007 made the interim stay absolute on the ground that the petitioners have complied with the conditions as ordered by this court. On notice from this court, on behalf of the Corporation, counter affidavits were filed in all three cases. 4. The grievance projected by the petitioners was that on an earlier occasion, M/s.Buhari Sons filed W.P.No.13792 of 1992 before this court challenging the notice issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, dated 1.6.1992. This Court by an order dated 11.9.1992 granted an interim stay on condition. As against the said condition, they moved a division bench in W.A.Nos.1455 to 1457 of 1992. The division bench initially granted an interim stay. Subsequently, the appeals along with the writ petition were taken up by the division bench, which disposed of the same by a common order, dated 29.4.1997. In the common order, the petitioner was directed to pursue its remedy before the Taxation Appeal Committee and relief was granted with reference to limitation. The division bench initially granted an interim stay. Subsequently, the appeals along with the writ petition were taken up by the division bench, which disposed of the same by a common order, dated 29.4.1997. In the common order, the petitioner was directed to pursue its remedy before the Taxation Appeal Committee and relief was granted with reference to limitation. Accordingly, they filed an appeal before the Taxation Appellate tribunal. Subsequently, the matter was also referred to Lok Adalat for settlement between parties. In the meanwhile, the Corporation demanded the entire tax without waiting for the appeal. Therefore, the impugned notice seeking for a direction to pay the amount was invalid. They ought to have decided the objections raised before the authorities. 5. It was also claimed that the present demand was exorbitant and there cannot be periodical revision of tax. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the division bench of this court in Sanjay Gupta Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and another reported in 2009 (2) CTC 465. That was a case which arose against the interim order passed by this court. The division bench heard both writ appeal and the main writ petition and held in paragraph 6, which is as follows: "6.....The occasion to file an Appeal will arise only after an order is passed and based thereon a demand is made. In the present case, the appellant having filed the objections, they were expected to be decided....." 6. In the counter affidavit filed, it was stated that the Taxation Appeal Committee gave direction to serve provisional notices along with working sheets, but the petitioners did not pay the tax. Subsequently, a revision was made in the property tax due to commercial usage and as per the tariff prescribed by the Corporation. After notice was served, the petitioners have filed objections belatedly. Since objections were made without any detail, the request made to pay the tax at the old rate was not considered. Since there was no merit in such objections, the same was rejected and the original order became final. 7. It was also stated that a fresh revision was initiated and provisional notice was served on 2.12.2008. Even after notice, there was no reply or objection by the petitioners. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petitions. Since there was no merit in such objections, the same was rejected and the original order became final. 7. It was also stated that a fresh revision was initiated and provisional notice was served on 2.12.2008. Even after notice, there was no reply or objection by the petitioners. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petitions. It was also indicated that the petitioners can only challenge the same before the Taxation Appeal Committee. Though the counsel for the petitioners relied on Sanjai Guptas case (cited supra), in the present cases, a division bench had already considered the case of the petitioners in detail. With reference to the appeal remedy, in paragraph 3 of the said order, the division bench held as follows: "3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that since the appellants/petitioners were challenging the demand notices before this Court, the time taken by them for filing the Appeals should be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation. We are not expressing any opinion on the said contention. It is, however, open to the appellants to move the concerned Taxation Appeal Tribunal and file Appeals along with petitions for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals. This Court in the decision reported in SIVABUSHANAM AMMAL V. COMMISSIONER, CORPN. OF MADRAS ( 1995 1 LW 603 ) has held that the Taxation Appeal Committee is a Court for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and has power to condone the delay in filing an Appeal before it. Therefore, it is open to the appellants/petitioners to file Appeals before the Taxation Appeal Committee along with petitions to condone the delay and on filing the Appeals and the petitions, the Taxation Appeal Committee, shall dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law." 8. It is pursuant to the said direction, they had moved the Taxation Appellate Tribunal and only on its direction, provisional notices were issued in detail. The petitioners have failed to avail such remedy by raising appropriate objections, which has got nothing to do with the demand and current revision for which notice was given and no objection was raised. Therefore, this court cannot entertain writ petitions especially when the previous order had become final and no challenge was made to those orders. The petitioners have failed to avail such remedy by raising appropriate objections, which has got nothing to do with the demand and current revision for which notice was given and no objection was raised. Therefore, this court cannot entertain writ petitions especially when the previous order had become final and no challenge was made to those orders. Even if the petitioners are aggrieved by the present revision, still there is a remedy open to them as held by the earlier division bench in respect of the very same petitioners that it was open to them to move the Tribunal against the revised tax demands. 9. With these observations, all three writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.