JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. With consent on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (in short “TNVAT Act”) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short “CST Act”), has challenged the assessment orders dated 30.06.2017, for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The challenge to the impugned proceedings is not on the merits of the assessment, but on the ground that the rectification petition filed by the petitioner dated 05.06.2017, for both the assessment years have not been considered, while passing the impugned order. The petitioner has produced the copy of the postal acknowledgment card, which shows that the rectification petitions have been delivered in the office of the respondent on 18.06.2017. After the impugned orders were passed, once again the petitioner has filed petition dated 28.08.2017, requesting for rectification of the order. The said petition has been acknowledged by the respondent himself by affixing his signature and seal dated 31.08.2017. 3. When the case came up for admission on 10.10.2017, the learned Government Advocate was directed to get instructions in this matter. It appears that the respondent has been sent for GST Training and his powers have been given to another Assistant Commissioner, who is holding full additional charge at the office of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Hosur. The said in-charge officer has furnished his statement to the learned Special Government Pleader, stating that as to what is the tax liability to be paid. The written instructions does not specifically state as to what is the fate of the application filed by the petitioner for rectification dated 05.06.2017 and 28.08.2017. 4. In any event, since these applications are pending and there is a power for the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistake, if it is apparent on the face of the record, it is appropriate for the officer to consider the said petition and pass appropriate orders. 4. In any event, since these applications are pending and there is a power for the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistake, if it is apparent on the face of the record, it is appropriate for the officer to consider the said petition and pass appropriate orders. In the light of the above, while directing the impugned assessment to be kept in abeyance, the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's applications dated 05.06.2017 and 28.08.2017, afford an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.