turnover by the petitioner, the petitioner had responded to the notices issued to him, by making available the books of accounts for inspection by the 1st respondent. On the day, the books of accounts were produced by the petitioner, the respondents could not verify the same, on account of certain other work, which they had. It is stated that, therefore, the petitioner was given another opportunity, on which date, the petitioner did not produce the books of account. I find that there is a dispute with regard to the factual aspects, as regards whether the petitioner had produced the books of accounts before the respondent or not. Be that as it may, the fact remains that, Exts.P7 and P8 orders have been passed without examining the said books of accounts of the petitioner. I am of the view that the said inaction on the part of the respondents would vitiate Exts.P7 and P8 orders, and therefore, I quash Exts.P7 and P8 orders. Seeing that there will be no prejudice caused to the respondents by having a fresh look at the matter, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent at his office at 11 a.m. on 04.03.2016, together with all books of account and other documents to substantiate his case on merits. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed within a period of one month thereafter. It is further made clear that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the petitioner
