ORDER Both the writ petitions have been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN: 33543580501/2012-2013 and 2013-2014 dated 17.07.2015, and quash the same. 2. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 3. The petitioner firm is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent. The said firm is dealing with tobacco chewing products, chocolate, shaving blades, amrutanjan and face powders. In respect of assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, the petitioner firm had duly reported in their turn over vide their monthly returns filed in Form-1 and the same is deemed to be accepted in terms of Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act,2006. While so, the petitioner firm's place of business was subject to surprise inspection by the Enforcement Wing officials on 09.12.2014. During the course of inspection, the Enforcement Wing Officials were of the opinion that defects arose in respect of the alleged difference in sales as reported in the monthly returns, namely, the sales as per the bank statement in respect of the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Further, defects in respect of the assessment year 2012-2013 was with reference to the alleged stock difference between the turn over reported in the monthly returns, namely, the entries found as per the profit and loss account. Based on the alleged defects as stated supra, the Enforcement Wing Officials recorded the statement from the person in charge at the time of inspection, understandably, not free from threat and coercion. The alleged statement recorded was admittedly self-incriminating so as to own up all the above defects pointed out in the form of sales suppression and alleged stock omission. Thereafter, it appears that the Enforcement Wing Officials did not rest with the same and formulated their inspection proposal notices seeking to revise the original assessment on the basis of the proposals dated 24.04.2015 and forwarded the same to the respondent herein for the purpose of implementation thereof. Immediately, thereafter, the respondent herein issued proposal notices seeking to revise the original assessment on the basis of the proposals evolved by the Enforcement Wing Official. Identical notices were issued proposing for revision of assessment in respect of the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Immediately, thereafter, the respondent herein issued proposal notices seeking to revise the original assessment on the basis of the proposals evolved by the Enforcement Wing Official. Identical notices were issued proposing for revision of assessment in respect of the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The defects as pointed out by the Enforcement Wing Officials during the course on inspection was verbatim proposed by the respondent in his pre-revision notices for both the assessment years. However, the petitioner filed a detailed reply in respect of both the assessment years issued by the respondent. The petitioner filed a detailed reply in respect of both the assessment years to the proposal issued by the respondent. However, the respondent proceeded to confirm the proposals by passing impugned revision of assessment dated 17.07.2015 which are ex-facie illegal and arbitrary given the fact that no reasons whatsoever was rendered for confirming the pre-revision proposals. In effect, it is a non-speaking order and bereft of legal sanctity. Hence, challenging the said impugned orders, the present Writ Petitions have been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without considering the detailed objection given by the petitioner firm and without providing an opportunity of hearing, the impugned orders have been passed. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent reiterating the counter affidavits filed by him has vehemently opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for the dismissal of the impugned orders stating that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court passes the following order:- The petitioner firm is directed to remit 20% each of the disputed tax in question in both the Writ Petitions to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment, the orders impugned in both the Writ Petitions are stand set aside and the respondent is directed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, thereafter. With the above direction, this Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.