M. Jaichandren, J.
1. Mr. R. Mahadevan, the learned Additional Government pleader takes notice for the respondents.
2. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner, who was owning,an agricultural estate in the Nilgiris District was an assessee in the books of account of the second respondent, under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. For the assessment year 1996-97, though the petitioner has filed the return of income showing a loss of Rs. 3,95,428, the second respondent has issued several notices, requiring the petitioner to produce the books of account for the relevant period. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has produced the books of account for the assessment year 1996-97. After appreciating the same, the second respondent has passed the assessment order, dated August 7, 1997, determining the taxable income at Rs. 29,12,037 and levied tax of Rs. 18,92,282, which was questioned by the petitioner by way of a representation, dated August 26, 1997, before the second respondent. Upon rejection of the representation, the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the first respondent, along with a stay petition. However, wherein the stay petition of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent. In the meantime, the second respondent had directed attachment of the lorry belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the order passed in the stay petition by way of a writ petition. This hon'ble court had directed the release of the lorry imposing the condition to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 and the same has been complied with. Pursuant to which, the revision preferred by the petitioner was dealt with and the same was dismissed by the first respondent. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner before this hon'ble court in W.P. No. 2682 of 1998. At the time of passing the final order in the above writ petition, this Court had set aside the impugned order therein and it had also directed the second respondent to pass fresh assessment order, with a further direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 out of the disputed tax. The said condition had been complied with by the petitioner. Thereafter, the second respondent has passed the assessment order, dated June 30, 2003, showing the taxable income at Rs. 2,01,620 and stating that the petitioner had paid an excess tax of Rs. 10,98,380 and that the same shall be refunded on an application or adjusted against tax dues, if any. Though the petitioner has made several attempts by way of representations and notices, seeking for the refund of the said amount, there was no favourable response. Hence, left with no other alternative remedy, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. Though the prayer is for a larger relief, learned Counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated March 12, 2005, is disposed of by the first respondent on the merits, within a specified period.
5. Considering the limited prayer sought for by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated March 12, 2005, on the merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated March 12, 2005, to the first respondent along with a copy of this order.
6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 is closed.