Order 1. These Writ Petitions have been filed for the issuance of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in TIN No. 33165043276/2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 dated 19.02.2015 and quash the same as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the act and direct the respondent to pass assessment orders afresh considering the reply dated 29.01.2015 by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm. 2. Aggrieved against the conditions imposed by the appellate authority, while granting stay, the petitioner firm is before this Court. 3. Since the issue in question are one and the same, these Writ Petitions are taken up together and decided by way of a common order. 4. Mr. A. Muthukaruupan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 5. By consent, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 6. The only objection which has been raised by the petitioner firm in all these Writ Petitions is that no personal hearing was given, even after the objections were raised by them nor enquiry was conducted by the respondent. Had they been given personal hearing, they would have proved that they are not even liable to pay the tax amount quantified by the respondent. They have also given representations dated 16.02.2015 directly to the respondent which has not been considered. In support of his contention, he also placed reliance upon a judgment reported in SRC Projects Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and another, (2010) 33 VST 333 (Mad). 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader would only contend that even as per the decision of the Supreme Court unless safe guard in respect of payment in question is made, the revenue of the Government will be at stake. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority holds good. Further, there is no proof for having sent the alleged representation sent to the respondent. Heard both sides. 8. The specific plea of the petitioner firm in all these Writ Petitions is that though have filed additional documents in the proper form, no personal hearing was given nor an enquiry was conducted by the respondent. Further, he has given additional documents which has also not been considered, of course, there is no proof for that. Heard both sides. 8. The specific plea of the petitioner firm in all these Writ Petitions is that though have filed additional documents in the proper form, no personal hearing was given nor an enquiry was conducted by the respondent. Further, he has given additional documents which has also not been considered, of course, there is no proof for that. But, taking into consideration, that personal hearing is a mandatory one and as per the judgment reported in SRC Projects Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and another, (2010) 33 VST 333 (Mad), the order impugned in these Writ Petitions stand set aside on condition that the petitioner firm deposits 25% of the tax demanded in the impugned orders in these Writ Petitions in order to show the bona fide of the petitioner firm. On such deposit, the respondent is directed to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm. Thereafter, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of availing of such opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that if the petitioner firm fails to deposit the amount as directed by this Court, this modification granted by this Court shall stand cancelled without any reference to this Court and the order of the appellate authority will get automatically restored. 9. These Writ Petitions stand disposed of to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.