ORDER: Heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. V. Haribabu, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) who takes notice for the respondents. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, all these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of selling inter alia automobiles. The petitioner is registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the TNVAT Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the C.S.T. Act. The petitioner is assessed in the books of the 1st respondent. For the period 2008-09, the 1st respondent assessed the returns filed by the petitioner under the TNVAT Act and CST Act. For the assessment year 2008-2009, the petitioner was assessed on a self assessment basis for a total and taxable turnover of Rs.163,53,58,625/- under the TNVAT Act. This was confirmed by an order TIN / 33690962728 / 2008-09 dated 17.07.2012 issued by the 1st respondent. A nominal deficit tax of Rs.1,193/- was observed as unpaid and accordingly Form O was issued. 4. The 1st respondent has subsequently issued a Notice bearing No. TIN 33690962728/2008-09 dated 06.05.2013 asking for copies of monthly returns in Form I for the period from April, 2008 to March, 2009 along with Annexures I to IV. The petitioner was also required to file necessary document pertaining to payment of works contract tax amounting to Rs.83,07,866/-. Likewise, the petitioner was asked to furnish payment details of the difference between tax paid under the TNVAT Act amounting to Rs. 2,81,31,434/- [Rs.1,98,23,568/- under TNVAT and Rs.83,07,866/- under Works Contract Act, on the one hand and the tax paid as perm the assessment order amounting to Rs.2,54,36,345/-. Petitioner filed a reply on 26.06.2013 stating that they were assessed by the office of the Adyar II Assessment Circle till March 2011 and that the documents pertaining to monthly returns in Form I for the period April 2007 to March 2008 with relevant annexures were available there. Likewise, it was mentioned that customer-wise details were given in Annexure II in the respectively monthly sales tax returns. The working pertaining to the Works Contract Tax was also enclosed. Likewise, it was mentioned that customer-wise details were given in Annexure II in the respectively monthly sales tax returns. The working pertaining to the Works Contract Tax was also enclosed. Regarding the difference of tax of Rs.26,95,088/- it was mentioned that this amount was paid as Works Contract Tax for consecutive financial years, i.e. Rs.6,90,320/- for 2005-2006 and Rs.20,05,005/- for 2006-2007 by themselves and they were not collected from the customers. 5. A revised notice dated 19.07.2013 was issued by the 1st respondent proposing to tax the difference between the sales reported in the trial balance and the sales turnover reported in the return @ 12.5%. Similarly, it was also proposed to levy tax on a best judgment basis on the difference between the purchase turnover as shown in the trial balance (Rs.18,565.92 lakhs) and the purchase as shown in the returns (Rs.560.32 lakhs). Petitioner filed its reply on 27.08.2013 stating that there was no sales suppression; the sales as per the trial balance included entry tax and did not deduct the trade discount given by the petitioner. The returns, on the other hand, had indicated the actual sale price. Accordingly, a reconciliation statement was annexed fully reconciling the difference to the last rupee. Same way, as far the purchase omission, the petitioner had stated that there was no purchase omission. It was submitted that the difference in purchase turnover between the trial balance and the monthly sales tax returns in Form I to the TNVAT Act was essentially due to the fact that in the annexures to Form I the evidence of inter-state purchases was shown and were included in electronic form and thus, there was no actual purchase suppression. However, on 09.12.2013, the 1st respondent had issued an order rejecting all the submissions made by the petitioner in the reply and challenging the same, petitioner is before this Court in W.P. No: 2931 of 2014. 6. For the assessment year 2009-10, the petitioner was assessed on a self assessment basis for a total and taxable turnover of Rs.209,72,43,235/- under the TNVAT Act. This was confirmed by an order TIN / 33690962728/ 2009-10 dated 24.07.2012 issued by the 1st respondent. A nominal excess tax of Rs. 439/- was observed to have been paid and accordingly Form P was issued. 7. This was confirmed by an order TIN / 33690962728/ 2009-10 dated 24.07.2012 issued by the 1st respondent. A nominal excess tax of Rs. 439/- was observed to have been paid and accordingly Form P was issued. 7. The 1st respondent has subsequently issued a Notice bearing No. TIN 33690962728/2009-10 dated 06.05.2013 asking for copies of monthly returns in Form I for the period from March, 2010 along with Annexures I to IV. The petitioner was also asked to file necessary documents to verify the correctness of the zero rate turnover of Rs.3,31,68,938/- for the month of February 2010. Likewise, the petitioner was asked to furnish reasons for the difference between the exemption of a turnover of Rs.1,09,37,869/- claimed in the monthly returns and exemption allowance to the tune of Rs.3,81,27,380/-. Petitioner filed a reply on 26.06.2013 stating that they were assessed by the office of the Adyar II Assessment Circle till March 2011 and that the documents pertaining to monthly returns in Form I for the period April 2007 to March 2008 with relevant annexures were available there. Further, with respect to the correctness of the zero rated turnover of Rs.86,32,743/- for the month of February, 2010, the petitioner stated that this was done by oversight and that by inadvertence, these sales were reported as zero rated sales when, in fact, they should have been reported as exempt sale. Petitioner also submitted that the VAT exemption came upto Rs.3,38,67,019/- for the month of February, 2010 while the total VAT exemption claimed was Rs.3,51,27,380/- which was inclusive of the month of March, 2010. To this effect, the exemption certificate issued by the Canteen Stores Department was also enclosed. 8. A revised notice dated 19.07.2013 was issued by the 1st respondent proposing to tax the difference between the sales reported in the trial balance and the sales turnover reported in the return @ 12.5%. Similarly, it was also proposed to levy tax on a best judgment basis on the difference between the purchase turnover as shown in the trial balance (Rs.23,290.40 lakhs) and the purchase as shown in the returns (Rs. 566.80 lakhs). Petitioner filed its reply on 27.08.2013 stating that there was no sales suppression; the sales as per the trial balance included entry tax and did not deduct the trade discount given by the petitioner. The returns, on the other hand, had indicated the actual sale price. 566.80 lakhs). Petitioner filed its reply on 27.08.2013 stating that there was no sales suppression; the sales as per the trial balance included entry tax and did not deduct the trade discount given by the petitioner. The returns, on the other hand, had indicated the actual sale price. Accordingly, a reconciliation statement was annexed fully reconciling the difference to the last rupee. Same way, as far the purchase omission, the petitioner had stated that there was no purchase omission. It was submitted that the difference in purchase turnover between the trial balance and the monthly sales tax returns in Form I to the TNVAT Act was essentially due to the fact that in the annexures to Form I the evidence of inter-state purchases was shown and were included in electronic form and thus, there was no actual purchase suppression. However, on 12.12.2013, the 1st respondent had issued an order rejecting all the submissions made by the petitioner in the reply and challenging the same, petitioner is before this Court in W.P. No: 2932 of 2014. 9. For the assessment year 2007-08, the petitioner was assessed on a self assessment basis for a total and taxable turnover of Rs.213,45,88,664/- under the TNVAT Act. This was confirmed by an order TIN / 33690962728 / 2007-08 dated 30.03.2012 issued by the 1st respondent. A nominal excess tax of Rs.1,740/- was found to have been paid and accordingly Form P was issued. 10. The 1st respondent has subsequently issued a Notice bearing No. TIN 33690962728/2007-08 dated 06.05.2013 asking for copies of monthly returns in Form I for the period from April, 2007 to March, 2008 along with Annexures I to IV. The petitioner was also required to file necessary document pertaining to payment of works contract tax. Petitioner filed a reply on 26.06.2013 stating that they were assessed by the office of the Adyar II Assessment Circle till March 2011 and that the documents pertaining to monthly returns in Form I for the period April 2007 to March 2008 with relevant annexures were available there. Likewise, it was mentioned that workings pertaining to collection of works contract tax were enclosed in Annexure II of the monthly sales tax returns. 11. A revised notice dated 19.07.2013 was issued by the 1st respondent proposing to tax the difference between the sales reported in the trial balance and the sales turnover reported in the return @ 12.5%. Likewise, it was mentioned that workings pertaining to collection of works contract tax were enclosed in Annexure II of the monthly sales tax returns. 11. A revised notice dated 19.07.2013 was issued by the 1st respondent proposing to tax the difference between the sales reported in the trial balance and the sales turnover reported in the return @ 12.5%. Similarly, it was also proposed to levy tax on a best judgment basis on the difference between the purchase turnover as shown in the trial balance (Rs.24,434.42 lakhs) and the purchase as shown in the returns (Rs.534.97 lakhs). Petitioner filed its reply on 27.08.2013 stating that there was no sales suppression; the sales as per the trial balance included entry tax and did not deduct the trade discount given by the petitioner. The returns, on the other hand, had indicated the actual sale price. Accordingly, a reconciliation statement was annexed fully reconciling the difference to the last rupee. Same way, as far the purchase omission, the petitioner had stated that there was no purchase omission. It was submitted that the difference in purchase turnover between the trial balance and the monthly sales tax returns in Form I to the TNVAT Act was essentially due to the fact that in the annexures to Form I the evidence of inter-state purchases was shown and were included in electronic form and thus, there was no actual purchase suppression. However, on 27.11.2013, the 1st respondent had issued an order rejecting all the submissions made by the petitioner in the reply and challenging the same, petitioner is before this Court in W.P. No: 2933 of 2014. 12. When the petitioner was in the process of filing these three writ petitions, the 1st respondent issued a notice of recovery of money due in Form U, addressed to the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Post Box No: 5106, Shankaranarayanan Building, No: 25/1, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 001. The notice stated that a sum of Rs.282,65,64,788/- was due to the Government from the petitioner herein towards arrears of tax and required the bank, under Section 45 of the TNVAT Act, to pay forthwith the money due held by the bank, within fifteen days from the date of service of the said notice. The notice stated that a sum of Rs.282,65,64,788/- was due to the Government from the petitioner herein towards arrears of tax and required the bank, under Section 45 of the TNVAT Act, to pay forthwith the money due held by the bank, within fifteen days from the date of service of the said notice. Subsequent to the receipt of the aforesaid notice, the Bank had frozen he petitioner's Account No: 00090310002261 and hence, challenging the said notice petitioner has filed W.P. No: 2939 of 2014. 13. Similarly, the 1st respondent issued a notice of recovery of money due in Form U, addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India at No: 52/36, Gandhi Mandapam Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai. The notice stated that a sum of Rs.282,65,64,788/- was due to the Government from the petitioner herein towards arrears of tax and required the bank, under Section 45 of the TNVAT Act, to pay forthwith the money due held by the bank, within fifteen days from the date of service of the said notice. Subsequent to the receipt of the aforesaid notice, the Bank had frozen he petitioner's Account No: 30208883044 challenging the said notice petitioner has filed W.P. No: 2940 of 2014. 14. Mr. V.T. Gopalan learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the reasons stated by the 1st respondent for rejecting the petitioner's objection that they have not produced the audited trial balance and Profit and Loss Account pertaining to the State of Tamil Nadu is baseless and without regard to the well established accounting practices. It is his contention that the consolidated books of accounts are audited only at the company level that includes all the branches of the company. Therefore, the financial statements are prepared on various data that is available at the company level. Derivation of these accounts from the company level to the entity level involves various estimates. These estimates would not give a true and fair view of the financial position of the company at the entity level. It is also his submission that it would be impossible to get the audited trial balance at the entity level and is impossible to procure as per the prevailing accounting practices and therefore, the expectation of the 1st respondent on a particular document, which is impossible to procure itself is a violation of the principles of natural justice. 15. On the other hand, Mr. 15. On the other hand, Mr. V. Hari Babu learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) submits that the respondent Commissioner has issued a notice on 26.09.2013 and reqeusted the assessee to furnish the trial balance and Profit and Loss Account for the State of Tamil Nadu duly audited by their auditor in order to verify the genuineness of the company's purchases. Till the receipt of the impugned notices, the assessee had not filed the same and therefore, the respondents have confirmed the revision of tax by the impugned notices. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also submit that the objections raised by the assessee should be put forth with the support of documents and it should be as per the accounting principles followed so far in practice. 16. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents filed along with the typed set of papers. It is seen that the petitioner company is a dealer in automobiles and is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Since the issue raised in all the writ petitions are common, the facts pleaded by the petitioner in W.P. No: 2931 of 2014 is taken for consideration for the sake of convenience. At the first instance, the dealer was issued with a notice on 06.05.2013 asking for copies of month returns in Form I for the period from April 2008 to March 2009 along with Annexures I to IV. The petitioner was also asked to furnish necessary documents pertaining to payment of works contract tax and the payment details of the difference between the tax paid under the TNVAT Act and the tax paid as per the assessment order. By a reply dated 26.06.2013, the petitioner stated that the monthly returns sought for were available in the Office of the Adyar II Assessment Circle and that the details sought for viz. the customer-wise details and the work contract tax were enclosed in the respective monthly tax returns filed. The petitioner had also stated that the difference of tax was paid as Works Contract Tax for consecutive financial years by themselves and they were not collected from the customers. the customer-wise details and the work contract tax were enclosed in the respective monthly tax returns filed. The petitioner had also stated that the difference of tax was paid as Works Contract Tax for consecutive financial years by themselves and they were not collected from the customers. Thereafter, a revised notice dated 19.07.2013 was issued by the 1st respondent, proposing to tax the difference between the sales reported in the trial balance and the sales turnover reported in the return @ 12.5%. Similarly, it was also proposed to levy tax on best judgment basis on the difference between the purchase turnover as shown in the trial balance and the purchases as shown in the returns. 17. On receipt of the above notice, the petitioner filed its objections vide their letter dated 27.08.2013 and gave a detailed reply on all the following points viz. (1) Monthly returns in Form – I, (2) regarding Works Contract Tax liability, (3) Sale of used oil, (4) Proposal to tax free of cost supply of accessories to customers, (5) regarding replacement under warranty, (6) regarding purchase discount, (7) regarding sales suppression, (8) regarding allegation of purchase omission and (9) regarding proposal for levy of penalty. All these objections were taken into account and the respondents took a view that all these can be considered only on verification of the relevant audited trial balance and Profit and Loss account for the State of Tamil Nadu. As there was no production of document, the respondent has confirmed the proposal to tax and passed the impugned orders and consequently, sent notices to the banks in which the petitioner holds an account about the pendency of the tax payment. 18. A perusal of the material documents reveals that what are all the information available with the assessee had been furnished to the department and the assessee had been duly assessed to tax and the liability had been fixed. Though the learned Senior Counsel raised a plea that the sales cannot be construed as Inter State sales and it is only a sales within the State of Tamil nadu, now the respondents have invited the dealer to prove their objections through an audited trial balance and the Profit and Loss Account and undoubtedly, it is for the assessee to prove its objections in accordance with law. For this, the learned Senior Counsel suggested that the petitioner shall approach the respondents by furnishing all the particulars to prove their claim. 19. In the light of the above stated position, as the respondents have proposed to revise the assessment only for non furnishing of the audited trial balance and the plea of the petitioner that they are prepared to prove their objections with the audited accounts, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to file their proof of objections within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law and on merits, give an opportunity of hearing to the dealer and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to proceed with the recovery order. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.