ORDER P. Jyothimani - The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the notice issued by the second respondent dated December 24, 2009 by which the second respondent has informed the petitioner that if the arrears of tax are not paid within seven days' time, action will be initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act with interest under section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner - company was closed as a sick industry in the year 1998 and on completion of the BIFR proceedings, the company has been revived by the new management in the year 2006. It is stated that after the company was revived in 2006, a letter was issued to the sales tax authorities in March 2006 requesting the authorities to furnish the copies of various documents relating to the company since no records are available with them, which forms the basis in arriving at the amount of tax payable by the company. It is seen that after receiving the said letter, the second respondent had issued a notice on October 18, 2006 demanding an amount of Rs. 82,05,48,103 as arrears of tax for the year commencing from 1978-79 to 1997-98. The petitioner has again given a reply on October 27, 2006 asking for some of the documents which are as follows : "1. Copy of show-cause notice for each of the abovementioned assessment years. 2. Copy of reply/objection to, the above-referred show-cause notices, if any filed by the erstwhile management headed by Chabbria group on behalf of Dunlop, pertaining to the abovementioned assessment years. 3. Copies of assessment orders whether provisional or final. 4. Copies of any revision of assessment. 5. Certificate regarding method/mode of service of proceedings referred to above including assessment order. 6. Copies of returns filed by the company for the abovementioned assessment years." The learned counsel would further submit that they have C forms and F forms to show that they are entitled for nearly 520 crores by way of exemption. It is seen that the petitioner - company has thereafter filed W.P. No. 43578 of 2006 before this court challenging the said notice dated October 18, 2006. In the writ petition also, the petitioner has taken a stand that while the respondent - Department is claiming huge amount of Rs. It is seen that the petitioner - company has thereafter filed W.P. No. 43578 of 2006 before this court challenging the said notice dated October 18, 2006. In the writ petition also, the petitioner has taken a stand that while the respondent - Department is claiming huge amount of Rs. 82,05,48,103 towards the arrears of tax for the year 1978-79 to 1997-98, without any relevant records on hand it is difficult for the petitioner to arrive at the actual amount due. While disposing of the said writ petition, this court by an order dated December 13, 2006 has directed the first respondent to furnish all the necessary information to which the petitioner is legally entitled to. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder : "Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and on the petitioner approaching the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is directed to furnish all the necessary information, to which the petitioner is legally entitled to, having regard to the huge sum of demand and having regard to the fact that the petitioner - company is just coming out of sickness and thereafter, pass suitable orders by rendering all possible help to the petitioner. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed." It is the case of the petitioner that even thereafter the information was not furnished and therefore, he sent a representation dated March 2, 2009 by extracting the order passed by this court as stated above requesting the first and third respondent to furnish all the papers relating to the company from 1978-79 till 1997-98 at their cost so as to enable them to represent the matter before the concerned authority or the appellate forum for quantification of the actual and real liability, if any. There is also a further representation on December 4, 2009 with the same prayer. It is thereafter, the impugned notice dated December 24, 2009 was issued by the second respondent wherein it is stated that the documents requested by the petitioner has been furnished to his representative Mr. S. A. R. Felix on January 8, 2007, January 11, 2007, April 18, 2007 and June 5, 2007 with proper acknowledgement and in spite of the furnishing of the information, the amount has not been paid and therefore, the petitioner was directed to pay within seven days. S. A. R. Felix on January 8, 2007, January 11, 2007, April 18, 2007 and June 5, 2007 with proper acknowledgement and in spite of the furnishing of the information, the amount has not been paid and therefore, the petitioner was directed to pay within seven days. It is seen that on January 18, 2010, the second respondent has issued another notice based on the reply given by the petitioner dated January 7, 2010 permitting the petitioner to peruse the connected assessment files and other records as requested by the petitioner on January 29, 2010. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the representative of the petitioner has received the entire documents as required and without taking any further steps the petitioner is repeating the same story that the documents are not available, which would show that the very intention of the petitioner is to prolong the matter. There is no dispute that for the period from 1978-79 to 1997-98, a huge amount of arrears of tax was assessed by the Department for the business carried on by the previous management. In the absence of documents, as stated tay the petitioner certainly it is not possible for the petitioner to reply and give proper explanation to the huge demand made by the respondent - Department. In such view of the matter, this court sets aside the notice dated December 24, 2009 and permits the petitioner to appear before the second respondent on February 15, 2010, through its authorised representative, in which event, the second respondent shall give opportunity to the petitioner to peruse the entire records and take copies at his own cost, relating to the petitioner's - company for the period from 1978-79 to 1997-98 and sufficient time shall be granted by the second respondent as par the requirement, not exceeding four weeks from February 15, 2010. Thereafter, it is for the petitioner to make appropriate claims based on C and F forms available to him within a period of one week. On receipt of such claims, the second respondent shall pass orders quantifying the amount, due from the petitioner on the merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks taking into consideration of the claims made by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.