JUDGMENT : ANITA SUMANTH, J. Prayer in W.P. No. 26717 of 2019: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his impugned order in TIN No. 33853340110/2011-2012, dated 28.06.2019 received by the petitioner on 07.07.2019 and to direct the respondents to follow procedure contemplated under the act by giving proper personal hearing and to produce Bank statements with dealers name etc. W.P. No. 26717 of 2019: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his impugned order in TIN No. 33853340110/2012-13, dated 28.06.2019 received by the petitioner on 07.07.2019 and to direct the respondents to follow procedure contemplated under the act by giving proper personal hearing and to produce Bank statements with dealers name etc. W.P. No. 26715 of 2019: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his impugned order in TIN No. 33853340110/2013-14, dated 28.06.2019 received by the petitioner on 07.07.2019 and to direct the respondents to follow procedure contemplated under the act by giving proper personal hearing and to produce Bank statements with dealers name etc. 1. The petitioner is in the second round of litigation and challenges orders of assessments that have been passed on 28.06.2019. The petitioner had suffered orders of assessments originally, dated 28.03.2018 for the periods 2007-08, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 that had been challenged by way of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.11894 to 11900 of 2018. The challenge included orders of assessments for the periods 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. A Learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order on 04.06.2018 of which relevant paragraphs are extracted below: “2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed entertaining of these writ petitions before this Court pointing out that this is the third time the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the assessment orders for some of the years. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed entertaining of these writ petitions before this Court pointing out that this is the third time the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the assessment orders for some of the years. 3. On perusal of the relevant documents filed in the typed set of papers, this Court finds that earlier, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 17735 of 2014 challenging the findings recorded by the Inspecting Authority pursuant to the surprise inspection conducted in the petitioner's place of business between 18.6.2014 and 21.6.2014. Ultimately, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 26.7.2016 leaving it open to the petitioner to canvass all the issues including the jurisdictional issue before the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the notice dated 28.12.2016 was issued to the petitioner proposing to revise the assessment for the year 2007-08. 4. However, instead of filing objections, the petitioner again filed W.P. No. 16346 of 2017 before this Court questioning the jurisdiction of the Authority to issue such a notice. However, this Court did not accept the submissions made by the petitioner, but only directed the petitioner to canvass all the issues before the Authority concerned and ultimately dismissed W.P. No. 16346 of 2017 on 29.6.2017. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued the notice 13.3.2018 for personal hearing. Again, the petitioner appeared to have not cooperated with the assessment proceedings and gave a letter seeking extension of time on the alleged ground that the documents were destroyed in the floods during December 2015. 5. This Court finds that such a reason was never raised in the earlier proceedings, more particularly in the earlier two writ petitions and it is for the first time the petitioner has stated such a reason. Be that as it may, the Assessing Officer granted sufficient time, which the petitioner failed to utilize. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the impugned assessment orders are time barred. 7. Such a plea, which touches upon the jurisdiction of the Authority, was left open to be raised before the Competent Authority in the earlier writ petitions. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain these writ petitions on the said ground. For the above reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned assessment orders. 8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are also dismissed. 9. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain these writ petitions on the said ground. For the above reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned assessment orders. 8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are also dismissed. 9. On a perusal of the impugned assessment orders, this Court finds that since the petitioner is dragging on the proceedings without filing their objections, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessments. However, since the assessments pertain to the years from 2007-08, this Court is inclined to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to go before the Assessing Officer. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to treat the impugned assessment orders as show cause notices and submit their objections within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the petitioner to canvass all the points including the question of jurisdiction as pleaded before this Court. On receipt of the objections, the third respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. If the petitioner does not avail this opportunity granted to them by this order within the time stipulated, the benefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner and it is open to the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings to recover the entire tax and penalty in pursuance of the impugned assessment orders.” 3. Thus it was a matter of grace of the petitioner had been granted yet another opportunity and the narration captured by the Learned Judge in order dated 04.06.2018 is self-explanatory as to the repeated litigation initiated before the Court. In conclusion, the Learned Judge permits the petitioner to treat the orders impugned in those writ petitions as show cause notices and submit their objections within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 4. It was left open to the petitioner to canvass all points including the question of jurisdiction. The petitioner has not complied with this order, rather has not availed the benefit granted to it and has admittedly, not bothered to file any objection as permitted by the Court. The 3rd respondent i.e., Assessing Officer has been directed, upon receipt of the objections, to afford an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders on merits. 5. The petitioner has not complied with this order, rather has not availed the benefit granted to it and has admittedly, not bothered to file any objection as permitted by the Court. The 3rd respondent i.e., Assessing Officer has been directed, upon receipt of the objections, to afford an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders on merits. 5. It is relevant to note that the orders of assessments had not been set aside and the writ petitions had been dismissed. This Court had specifically stated that if the petitioner does not avail the opportunity granted under that order within the time frame stipulated thereunder, the benefit of that order would not enure to the petitioner and it would be open to the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings to recover the entire tax and penalty in pursuance of the impugned orders. 6. Thus upon the elapse of 10 days from the date of receipt of those orders, it was open to the respondents to take action to recover the disputed demands if the petitioners do not file any objection. This has not been done, and instead, the Officer, apparently without reading the order of this court dated 04.06.2028, has issued notice dated 11.12.2018, which the petitioner has taken undue benefit of. 7. Even in response to notice dated 11.12.2018, which is entirely misconceived and ought not to have been issued at all, the assessee files a objection and not content with that, requests for one month time till 30th of January, 2019 to furnish the required details. This has let to the passing of the impugned order dated 28.06.2019. 8. I am of the categoric view that there is absolutely no infirmity in the orders of assessment assailed and in fact and in light of the earlier order of this Court dated 04.06.2018, there was no need for any notice to have been issued to the petitioner, in light of the petitioner not having complied with the order of this Court by filing objections within the time provided. In light of the discussion as aforesaid, I find no merit in these writ petitions and dismiss the same, confirming the impugned orders. Connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.