JUDGMENT Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pranjal Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue/State respondent. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sector-1, Sales Tax, Chandausi-respondent no. 6 in GST DRC-07 under Section 74 of the UPGST/CGST/IGST Act of 2017 and connected demand of tax, interest and penalty. 3. The challenge has been laid on the ground that the order has been passed in gross disregard of judicial discipline contrary to Appellate orders dated 10.03.2021 and 19.07.2022 and without deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the UPGST/CGST/IGST Act and also being contrary to the directions given in Writ Tax No. 1320 of 2022 decided on 03.12.2022. 4. Sri Khanna vehemently submits that this Court in its order dated 03.12.2022 passed in Writ Tax No. 1320 of 2022 had mandated that the issue pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate assessment proceedings under Section 74 of the Act shall be decided as a preliminary issue, but the said mandate has not been adhered to while passing the impugned order. He submits that this Court in almost similar circumstances has entertained Writ Tax No. 379 of 2023 (M/s New Rajshree Sweets v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and 2 others) wherein the question of jurisdiction of the assessing officer is under scrutiny. He thus submits that the present petition be tagged along with the said petition and interim protection be granted. 5. Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue in opposition to the Writ Petition submits that the petitioner's claim for parity of the Writ Tax No. 379 of 2023 is misconceived inasmuch as both cases cannot be treated to be identical as in Writ Tax No. 379 of 2023 the adjudication proceedings were yet to be finalized whereas in the present case the adjudication proceedings have culminated into the impugned order. The petitioners can prefer an Appeal against the same raising all issues raised in this Writ Petition, which shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority and no interference is warranted by this Court. 6. The petitioners can prefer an Appeal against the same raising all issues raised in this Writ Petition, which shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority and no interference is warranted by this Court. 6. Having heard the respective counsels for the parties this Court is of the view that the Assessing Officer-respondent no 6 ought to have adhered to the mandate of the order dated 03.12.2022 passed in Writ Tax No. 1320 of 2022. This Court is already seized with the issue regarding jurisdiction of the assessing officer in Writ Tax No. 379 of 2023 and the issue involved in this petition can also be adjudicated along with the said Writ Tax No. 379 of 2023. 7. Matter requires consideration. 8. Learned counsel for the Revenue/State respondents prays for and is allowed six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioners will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. 9. Connect with Writ Tax No. 379 of 2023 and list after expiry of aforesaid period. 10. Considering the submissions advanced it is provided that till the next date of listing the demand made pursuant to the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 passed under Section 74 of the Act in GST DRC-07 for the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019 shall remain stayed.