Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered dealer in 'insulating materials' on the files of the third respondent, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is a manufacturer of 'insulators' falling under Entry 69 of Part B of the First Schedule of the Act, 2006, taxable at 4%, till 11.07.2011 and at 5% on and from 12.07.2011. The petitioner is filing the monthly returns before the third respondent, periodically, disclosing the sales turnover of the 'insulator materials'. While so, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had clarified that 'Insulation Materials' are taxable at 14.5%, vide clarification issued in D.Dis.Acts Cell II/5919/2012, dated 02.04.2012. Therefore, the petitioner had made a request to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, on 04.07.2012, seeking a clarification, stating that the 'Insulation Materials' manufactured by the petitioner would be falling under Entry 69 of Part B of the First Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner had also requested for an opportunity of being heard, in person, to explain his case. However, the first respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, dated 23.07.2012, by way of a Clarification, stating that the 'Insulation materials' sold by the petitioner are 'Insulated Sandwich Panels' taxable at 14.5%, under Entry 69 of Part C of the First Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 23.07.2012, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as per Rule 12-A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that an opportunity of personal hearing would be given to a party asking for clarification, as per Rule 12-A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, only if the party so desires, as provided under clause 7 of the said Rules. He had further submitted that the clarification issued by the first respondent is binding on the petitioner and it is final. 5. He had further submitted that the clarification issued by the first respondent is binding on the petitioner and it is final. 5. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on perusal of records available, it is seen that the petitioner, while requesting for a clarification, in respect of its product, had also submitted that an opportunity of personal hearing may be given to it, by its letter, dated 04.07.2012. However, no such opportunity had been given to the petitioner before the impugned proceedings had been passed by the first respondent, on 23.07.2012. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 23.07.2012. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent, for passing an appropriate order on the clarification sought by the petitioner, by its letter, dated 4.7.2012, after issuing a notice to the petitioner and by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The first respondent shall pass such an order as directed by this Court, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.