JUDGMENT : 1. Since there was some urgency expressed by the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a representation before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice at her Lordship's residence and obtained permission to take up the above writ petition for admission before me at my residence. Accordingly, I have taken up the above writ petition today for admission at my residence at 7.00 p.m. 2. Mr. Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondent. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Shri U.Anjeneyulu, Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai, Mr. J.X. Peter, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai and Mr. R. Muthukumar, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai, were also present. 3. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 4. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent dated 29.03.2018 and to quash the same. 5. By letter dated 29.03.2018, the respondent has stated that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.225 crores as advance tax, whereas, a sum of Rs.687 crores was determined to be payable by them as advance tax. Therefore, the respondent requested the petitioner to pay the remaining payment of Rs.462 crores immediately. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 6. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has received the letter dated 29.03.2018 only yesterday, i.e., 29.03.2018, the petitioner is apprehending that the respondent may proceed further and take coercive action against the petitioner. 7. Mr. Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the letter dated 29.03.2017 is only a notice issued to the petitioner and it is not a demand made by the respondent. 8. On instructions, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the letter dated 29.03.2018 is only a notice and not a demand made by the respondent against the petitioner. 8. On instructions, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the letter dated 29.03.2018 is only a notice and not a demand made by the respondent against the petitioner. Though the petitioner has given their reply to the notice dated 29.03.2018 on the same day, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought 10 days time for giving a detailed reply to the said notice for the reason that they have not received the letter dated 09.02.2018 and the e-mail dated 14.02.2018, which was said to be dispatched on 15.02.2018. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent produced a copies of the letter dated 09.02.2018 and the e-mail dated 14.02.2018, which was sent on 15.02.2018 and submitted that the respondent will furnish the copies of the same to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner today itself. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the submission made by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent, the writ petition can be closed. 10. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, since the letter dated 29.03.2018 sent by the respondent is only a notice issued to the petitioner, the petitioner is granted 10 days time to give a suitable reply to the letters dated 29.03.2018, 09.02.2018 and the e-mail dated 14.02.2018. Further, it is also open to the petitioner to raise all the issues before the respondent. On receipt of the same, the respondent shall decide the matter in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition is closed No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.