Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the D3 proposals, relating to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, had been made, initially, based on the missing Laboratory Reports. However, this Court, by its order dated 29.02.2008, made in W.P.No.5278 of 2008, had held as follows: "In the result, the writ petition is disposed of:- The petitioner shall file his objections within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this order and the respondent shall proceed to consider the petitioner's objection. But, however, the respondent's conclusion of suppression if arrived at, shall not be only on the basis of the fact that the petitioner has not filed his lab reports serially, if otherwise the petitioner is able to show that there is no suppression and no relevant records are missing." Thereafter, notices, dated 07.02.2012, had been issued by the first respondent relating to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, calling for objections from the petitioner, if any, for the proposals made therein. The petitioner had filed its objections to the notice, dated 07.02.2012, relating to the assessment year 2002-03, on 19.03.2008. For the notice relating to the assessment year 2003-04, the petitioner had filed its objections, on 29.11.2010. Further, the second respondent had issued certain directions, dated 31.01.2012, in Rc.475/2011/A4 to the first respondent. Paragraph 7 of the said directions reads as follows: "7. In view of the above discussion, the deviation proposals submitted by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Washermenpet-II Assessment Circle vide reference third cited and forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Zone-IX, Chennai, in the reference fourth cited and fifth cited is not accepted for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 since the issue involved is one and the same. In view of the above discussion, the deviation proposals submitted by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Washermenpet-II Assessment Circle vide reference third cited and forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Zone-IX, Chennai, in the reference fourth cited and fifth cited is not accepted for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 since the issue involved is one and the same. The Assessing Officer is instructed to pass orders implementing the D3 proposals in toto after following the directions of the Madras High Court and send a copy of the assessment order to this office immediately." Since, the first respondent has an obligation to follow the directions of the second respondent, who is the higher authority, the first respondent cannot pass an order, applying his mind independently, considering the objections filed by the petitioner to the notices, dated 07.02.2012, issued by the first respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the first respondent to consider the objections filed by the petitioner, on 19.03.2008, relating to the assessment year 2002-03, and the objections filed on 29.11.2010, relating to the assessment year 2003-04 and to pass appropriate orders thereon, without being influenced by any of the adverse directions issued by the second respondent, with regard to the implementation of the D3 proposals. 3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the directions issued by the second respondent, dated 31.01.2012, do not contain any adverse remarks, which may unduly influence the decision making process of the first respondent, with regard to the D3 proposals. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the objections filed by the petitioner, on 19.03.2008, relating to the assessment year 2002-03, and the objections, dated 29.112010, relating to the assessment year 2003-04 and to pass appropriate orders thereon, without being influenced by the adverse remarks alleged to have been made by the second respondent in his directions, dated 31.01.2012, if any. The first respondent shall also pass such order, as per the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 29.02.2008, made in W.P.No.5278 of 2008, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 5. The first respondent shall also pass such order, as per the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 29.02.2008, made in W.P.No.5278 of 2008, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 5. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.