JUDGMENT This petition which has been filed by M/s Frost International Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks the quashing of only paragraph 1 of the notice dated 10 March 2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Kanpur in connection with the assessment proceedings being undertaken under Section 153-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2010-11 and Section 143 (3) of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. It was brought to the notice of the petitioner that as per the information/documents available, under invoicing had been made in the transaction made by the petitioner. Paragraph 1 contains details of the transactions as also the under invoicing. The petitioner was required to show cause as to why the under invoicing of the value may not be added in the total income. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the notice dated 10 March 2016 was actually served upon 12 March 2016. The petitioner immediately sent a communication dated 15 March 2016 asking for documents on the basis of which the 1 the Act department had inferred that the assessee company had under invoiced. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the request made for supply of the documents, the documents have not been supplied as a result of which the petitioner could not file a proper reply to the show cause notice though a reply dated 21 March 2016 has been filed. 5. Though submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the notice on the ground that non-supply of documents has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, but Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is premature as even, according to the petitioner, an order has not yet been passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on the show cause notice. 6. The petition is clearly premature as even, according to the petitioner, an order has not been passed as yet. The petitioner can raise all that issues, if it has any grievance, after the order is passed. 7. This view was also taken by three Division Benches of this Court in Prestige Paints v. Commissioner of CUS. 6. The petition is clearly premature as even, according to the petitioner, an order has not been passed as yet. The petitioner can raise all that issues, if it has any grievance, after the order is passed. 7. This view was also taken by three Division Benches of this Court in Prestige Paints v. Commissioner of CUS. & C. Ex., Kanpur, 2004 (173) ELT 6 , International Electron Devices Ltd. v. Union of India, 2010 (252) ELT 352, and Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I v. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (260) ELT 514 8. We, therefore, do not consider it appropriate to entertain the petition at this stage. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.