Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 16.02.2015 issued by the respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to lift the attachment. 2. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the respondent. The petitioner is engaged in the business of purchasing bullion from other Countries by way of import and after clearing the imported bullion, the petitioner used to sell the same locally. During the course of such business, the enforcement authorities have conducted an inspection in the premises of the petitioner on 28.09.2010. After such inspection, a report was sent by the enforcement wing authorities to the assessing officer stating that there were differences in the value of purchase of bullion from other countries and there was alleged tax evasion by the petitioner for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 for five years. Inspite of explanation offered by the petitioner, the assessing officer proceeded to pass orders of assessment in S.P. Nos. 20 to 24 of 2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed statutory appeals before the appellate authority vide A.P.V. Nos. 31 to 35 of 2014. The appellate Authority, while granting interim stay directed the assessee to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount and for the balance to furnish bank guarantee. Aggrieved by this condition to furnish bank guarantee for 75% of the tax amount, the petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 17505 to 17509 of 2014 before this Court. By a common order dated 03.07.2014, this Court modified the condition to furnish bank guarantee into one of personal bond. In the meantime, the petitioners bank account have been attached by the assessing officer. Thereafter, the appellate Authority had taken up the appeals filed by the petitioner in A.P.V. Nos. 31 to 35 of 2014. The appellate Authority, by separate orders dated 29.01.2015 partly allowed the appeals preferred by the petitioners. As per the orders of the appellate authority, the tax liability imposed on the petitioner to the extent of 95% by the assessing authority was set aside. On the basis of the order passed by the Appellate Authority in the statutory appeals preferred by the petitioner on 29.01.2015, the petitioner sought to adjust the tax payable by them for the month of January 2015. On the basis of the order passed by the Appellate Authority in the statutory appeals preferred by the petitioner on 29.01.2015, the petitioner sought to adjust the tax payable by them for the month of January 2015. In other words, as the petitioner has got relief in the appeals and the petitioners have to be given refund of the amount as per the orders of the appellate authority, the petitioner sought to adjust the tax amount payable for the month of January 2015. According to the petitioners, the amount which the assessing officer has to refund to them is more than the tax amount payable for the month of January 2015 and there is excess amount available to the account of the petitioners. While so, without giving effect to the order passed by the appellate authority, by the impugned order dated 16.02.2015, the respondent sought to attach the bank account of the petitioner. As per the impugned order, the assessing officer directed the officials of the bank where the petitioner is maintaining their account, to deduct a sum of Rs.1,87,73,922/- to satisfy the tax liability of the petitioner for the month of January 2015. It is this order dated 16.02.2015 of the respondent the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that had the respondent given effect to the order of the Appellate Authority, there would not have been any tax amount payable by the petitioner. Furthermore, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In any event, if the order of the Appellate Authority is given effect to, the petitioner is not required to pay any amount towards the tax liability. In other words, there is excess amount available to the credit of the petitioner with the respondent and the same can very well be adjusted for the tax liability payable by the petitioner for the month of January 2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that if the tax amount payable by an assessee exceeds Rs.2 crores, then the respondent – Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to deal with such assessee and only the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to pass any orders thereon. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that if the tax amount payable by an assessee exceeds Rs.2 crores, then the respondent – Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to deal with such assessee and only the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to pass any orders thereon. Therefore also, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the order of the respondent and to consequently direct the respondent to lift the order of attachment of the petitioner bank accounts. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) appearing for the respondent did not dispute the fact that if the order of the appellate authority dated 29.01.2015 is given effect to, there would not been any tax liability on the part of the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, as against the assessment orders passed by the respondent for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, the petitioner has filed statutory appeals before the Appellate Authority in VAT A.P. No. 31 to 35 of 2014. The Appellate Authority, after elaborate discussion, has partly allowed the appeals preferred by the petitioner on 29.01.2015 and gave relief to the petitioner to the extent of 95% of the tax liability. Admittedly, in the impugned order passed by the respondent, there is no reference made to such orders passed by the Appellate Authority on 29.01.2015. It is not the case of the respondent that they are not aware of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Furthermore, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to the petitioner. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that if the order of the appellate authority is given effect to then there may not be any tax amount payable by the petitioner for the month of January 2015 has force. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 16.02.2015 of the respondent cannot be sustained. 6. As regards the jurisdiction of the respondent to pass the impugned order, it is left open to the petitioner to agitate it in a manner known to law. 7. In the light of the above, the impugned orders are set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. 6. As regards the jurisdiction of the respondent to pass the impugned order, it is left open to the petitioner to agitate it in a manner known to law. 7. In the light of the above, the impugned orders are set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. The respondent is directed to raise the orders of attachment of all the bank accounts filed by the petitioner in this writ petition and the remaining bank accounts mentioned in the impugned order dated 16.02.2015 within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the respondent, while giving effect to the order of the appellate authority dated 29.01.2015 shall refund the excess amount, if any, to the petitioners.