Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TIN No.33305563701/2012-13 and quash the order dated 07.01.2015 and further direct the respondent to consider the letter dated 12.02.2015 along with relevant records and thereafter to pass order afresh insofar as the reversal of ITC for the difference of turnover as per web report. 2. The only ground raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the authority has not considered the objection of the petitioner in a perspective manner. The petitioner has also produced necessary documents for the payment of tax at the other end, namely, seller's end, but in the order, the authority has simply stated that the tax has not been paid with the other end without taking into consideration the documents produced for the payment of tax on the other side. Apart from that, personal hearing also has not been given to the petitioner firm. Had the personal hearing given, the petitioner firm would have explained in a detailed manner. Therefore, according to the petitioner firm, the tax reversal is not in accordance with law. In any view of the matter, for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, huge amount is liable to be refunded to the petitioner firm by the respondents. Inspite of the above, the petitioner firm has voluntarily come forward to pay 15% of the tax dispute amount on Rs.69,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakhs only). If further opportunity is given, the petitioner firm can agitate the matter on merits. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the order is passed by giving detailed explanation. Further, the order is only an appealable order and therefore, it need not be interfered by this Court. 4. Heard both sides. The main Writ Petition itself is taken up. 5. Before dealing with this matter, the very reading of the explanation given at paragraph No.5 is thus:- “5. Regarding disallowance of VAT input credit in few cases, they clarified as follows:- i) Regarding input tax credit reversal of Rs.63,75,007/- in respect of their purchases from W.S. Industries, they had stated that in the original return filed by the said vendor, TIN No. of their Company was not mentioned due to the mistake. Regarding disallowance of VAT input credit in few cases, they clarified as follows:- i) Regarding input tax credit reversal of Rs.63,75,007/- in respect of their purchases from W.S. Industries, they had stated that in the original return filed by the said vendor, TIN No. of their Company was not mentioned due to the mistake. On raising the issue with the vendor, the vendor has filed revised returns for F.Y.2011-2012 to F.Y.2013-2014. The copy of the revised return files W.S. Industries was attached for perusal. ii) Regarding input tax credit reversal of Rs.6,00,930/- (input tax as per their record Rs.6,88,026/-) for M/s.Sujana Metal Products Ltd., Chennai, the vendor has filed May-2012 return in wrong TIN No instead of correct. Tin No of Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., The letter dated 12th December'2014 received from the vendor for the clarification was attached for perusal. iii) In respect of input tax credit reversal of Rs.6,25,734/- for M/s.Chettinad Cement, in the return filed by them for the month of June 12 and July 12, certain invoices were repeated claiming input tax credit in total for Rs.6,25,734/-. However, as per their books of accounts and as per the Annual VAT audit report filed by them there was no duplication in claim of VAT input credit, hence there was no question of input reversal. iv) Regarding input tax credit reversal of Rs.26,712/- for Priya Agencies they had asked the vendor to arrange for the copy of return filed by them which is being arranged in due course.” 6. They have even produced the documents from the purchasers. But a reading of the impugned order, the authority states as follows:- “In respect of proposed reversal of Input Tax Credit of Rs.82,39,772/- claimed out of purchase of goods effected for Rs.1,29,61,26,648/- from the following dealers, their explanation found in para 5 was not convincing for the following reasons. Annual Scrutiny cross verification report collected through web revealed the following difference and false claim of ITC.” 7. Therefore, it is very clear that the authority has not taken into consideration the other documents which has been produced. The explanation as given in the statement is extracted, but the document verification, has not been done. Therefore, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is error on the face of the record. Further, the respondents have also not given personal hearing to the petitioner firm. The explanation as given in the statement is extracted, but the document verification, has not been done. Therefore, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is error on the face of the record. Further, the respondents have also not given personal hearing to the petitioner firm. Therefore, on this limited ground that the authorities have not taken into consideration the documents produced by the petitioner and personal hearing was also not given and the petitioner agrees to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) on or before 31.03.2015, the order impugned in the present Writ Petition stands set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned for fresh disposal. Needless to state that the authorities will give one more opportunity to the petitioner firm to put forth their case and also a personal hearing for passing final orders in this regard. Such exercise has to be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner firm fails to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- within 31.03.2015, as directedby this Court, the interim measure given in this Writ Petition shall stand automatically dismissed without any further reference to this Court. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.