JUDGMENT : 1. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is common all the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes). 2. Petitioner claims that he originally carried on business of welding job work in the name of Tvl. Ramalingam Engineering Works and they were only doing job work and not effected any sales. On account of the hard work, the petitioner slowly established their marketing in the welding work and earned goodwill. Petitioner for the purpose of marketing has used the name of 'Chennai Roofings' and carried out installation of roofing works. 3. Petitioner subsequently got registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 in January, 2009 and engaged the services of part time Accountant for the purpose of reporting monthly turnover as per the provisions of the above said Act. However, to his shock and surprise, the Enforcement Wing Officials of the Commercial Tax Department conducted inspection on 19.06.2010 and seized, all the documents without furnishing the copy of the same and subsequently issued notices proposing to levy tax and penalty for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. The petitioner was asked to appear before the respondent personally and accordingly, the petitioner appeared on 27.01.2015 and expressed his inability to put forth his defence for the reason that the Enforcement Wing Officials had seized all the documents and though he has requested for the copies of the documents, they were not furnished and in the absence of the documents he is not in a position to put forth his defence. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the inability pleaded, the respondent has passed the impugned order. Challenging the legality of the same, these writ petitions are filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner attended personal hearing on 27.01.2015 and expressed his inability to put forth his defence on account of the fact that the Enforcement Wing Officials had seized all the documents and prayed for time and without considering the said plea, the respondent has passed the impugned order. 6. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent would contend that it is still open to the petitioner to get copies of the documents and thereafter, offer his explanation. 7. This Court in the light of the above facts and circumstances and the rival submissions is of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter is once again to be remitted to the respondent for the reason that admittedly the Enforcement Wing Officials had seized all the documents and in the absence of the documents, the petitioner may not be in a position to put forth his defence effectively. 8. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 28.01.2015 is set aside and the matter is once again remanded to the first respondent for fresh adjudication and it is also open to the petitioner to approach the Enforcement Wing of the Commercial Tax Department to get copies of the documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Enforcement Wing is in turn, directed to furnish copies of the documents seized from the petitioner's premises within a period of three weeks thereafter, and the petitioner is at liberty to put forth his explanation to the respondent which would be taken into consideration and the respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.