JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against notice Annexure-4 issued under Section 15 of the Entry Tax Act, 1999 ('the Act') calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why tax and interest be not levied against the petitioner. 2. On filing of the returns by the petitioner, vide Annexure-3 dated 27.03.2018 the assessment order was passed. Whereafter, the present notice has been issued on 13.09.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions based on the notification Annexure-1 as amended by Annexure-2 to contend that the issuance of notification by the respondents is not justified, inasmuch as, same issue is pending consideration before this Court in S.B. Civil (VAT) Revision Petition No. 169/2014 filed by the petitioner assessee itself. 4. Further submissions have been made that the issuance of notice is based on change of opinion and, therefore, the notice itself is without jurisdiction and consequently, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Reliance has been placed on several judgments including the judgment in the case of Union of India v. State of Haryana, (2000) 10 SCC 482 and Ravi Prakash Refineries Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 349 ELT 5 . 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the assessment order (Annexure-3) indicates that on the issue sought to be raised by the petitioner no determination whatsoever was made by the assessing authority while passing the assessment order. Merely because the material in this regard was available before the authority cannot be a reason enough to come to a conclusion that the assessing authority had applied its mind to the said issue so as to question the issuance of reopening notice alleging change of opinion on part of the respondent authority. 8. So far as the pendency of the issue before this Court in a revision petition filed by the petitioner is concerned, the said revision has reached this Court after the matter has undergone the requisite statutory levels and not by way of a direct petition before this Court. Further, mere pendency of a issue before this Court does not preclude the authorities from exercising their powers under the Act, unless the issue stands concluded. 9. Further, mere pendency of a issue before this Court does not preclude the authorities from exercising their powers under the Act, unless the issue stands concluded. 9. As only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, interference at this stage without the version of the petitioner to the show cause notice and the determination by the authorities is not warranted in the circumstances of the case. 10. In view thereof, no case for interference at this stage in the present writ petition is made out, the same is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to raise all the issues before the authority.