JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the provisional assessment order, dated 27.1.2012, passed by the second respondent. However, at this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that after the second respondent had passed the provisional assessment order, on 27.1.2012, a final assessment order had been passed by the second respondent, on 9.2.2012, confirming the provisional assessment order made by him, earlier. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had not raised any objection, formally, against the provisional assessment order passed by the second respondent, on 27.1.2012. Hence, the second respondent had passed the final assessment order, dated 9.2.2012. He had also placed a copy of the final assessment order, dated 9.2.2012, passed by the second respondent, before this Court. He had further stated that in such circumstances, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner has become infructuous. 4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the writ petition is dismissed, as infructuous. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the final assessment order passed by the second respondent, on 9.2.2012, if so advised, before the appropriate authority or forum in the manner known to law. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.