Judgment 1. These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus to call for the records relating to the respondent dated 05.11.2014 and 26.12.2014 and quash the same. 2. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and decided by a common order. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders of the respondent dated 05.11.2014 and 26.12.2014 through the grounds of appeal that inspite of the fact that a suitable reply given by the petitioner vide their letter dated 30.10.2014, the impugned orders came to be passed in both the Writ Petitions without considering the reply of the petitioner. Secondly, in order to show his bona fide, the petitioner firm is ready to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in question in both the Writ Petitions with the respondent and contest the matter on merits. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the petitioner firm is ready to offer 25% of the disputed tax in both the Writ Petitions, suitable direction may be issued to the respondent. 5. In a similar issue, this Court has categorically held that when a reply given by the firm, the authorities has to consider the reply of the petitioner and should pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, this Court remitted the matter back to the authorities concerned for fresh disposal. Therefore, the petitioner firm is directed to pay 25% of the amount demanded in the impugned notices in both the Writ Petitions within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After the receipt of the amount paid by the petitioner firm, the respondent is directed to consider the reply of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks, thereafter.