Judgment 1. The petitioner challenges an order of assessment dated 23.04.2014 made under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 for the assessment year 2009- 2010. By which there was a revision of assessment made on the petitioner under Section 27(1)(b) of the Act and the petitioner has been called upon to pay the dealer rate of tax. 2. The short ground on which the impugned order has been questioned is on the ground that the nature of transaction done by the petitioner is not a works contract dealer and reference to Section 6(2) of the Act is thoroughly misconceived. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, notice was ordered and the learned Additional Government Pleader is directed to get instructions in the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the instant case, the dealer has not exercised any option for payment under Section 6(2) of the Act for the year 2009-2010 and Section 6(2) of the Act would have no application at all with the nature of transaction done by the petitioner and the petitioner is not a works contract dealer. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned proceedings is vitiated on account of total non application of mind. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is attempting to take advantage of the typographical error found in the impugned order. 6. On perusal of the impugned order of assessment, it appears that it is not a mere typographical error but the assessing officer has approved to examine the transaction and state that the dealer having not exercised any option for payment of tax under Section 6(2) of the Act for the year 2009-2010, the objection of the dealer is not acceptable. This Court is of the view that the specific issue pointed out by the petitioner has to be considered in the matter and the contention of the petitioner that they are not works contract dealer has also to be examined and thereafter, the Assessing Officer has to render a finding as regards the provisions of law which would stand attracted to the transaction made by the petitioner. 7. For all the above reasons, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order of assessment. 7. For all the above reasons, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order of assessment. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of revision is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent shall consider the petitioner's objection dated 10.06.2014 as a reply to the notice for revision of assessment dated 28.02.2014 and after affording of opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.