Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 31.5.2012, relating to the assessment year 1999-2000, stating that it had been passed contrary to Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 4 of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 3. It has also been stated that the impugned order had been passed, by the first respondent, based on the instructions issued by the respondents 2 to 6 and also without having jurisdiction to pass such an order. It has been further stated that the impugned order had been issued by the first respondent levying tax on the second and the third sales turnover of iron and steel, which are declared goods. It had also been stated that the enforcement wing officials had rejected the deviation proposals, as well as the arbitration proposals made in favour of the petitioner and they had directed the first respondent to implement the D3 proposals, within the prescribed period. In such circumstances, the first respondent had been compelled to pass the impugned order, dated 31.5.2012, based on the directions issued by the enforcement wing officials, without applying his mind, independently. 4. It had also been stated that the impugned order had been passed levying the tax on the second and the subsequent sales of iron and steel products, which are declared goods, contrary to Sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is not in a position to refute the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 6. As such, the impugned order, dated 31.5.2012, passed by the first respondent, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is set aside. However, it made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to file additional objections, if any, to the revision notice issued on 31.5.2004, along with the relevant documents, to substantiate its claims, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to file additional objections, if any, to the revision notice issued on 31.5.2004, along with the relevant documents, to substantiate its claims, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon, considering the objections filed by the petitioner, if any, under Sections 54 and 54-A of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by the D3 proposals sent by the second and the sixth respondents. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.