1. Issue notice. Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
1.1. With the consent of counsels for parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2. This is a second round of litigation. In the first round, the petitioners had approached this Court to challenge the demand notice dated 29.09.2016 (signed by the Commissioner, Revenue Department on 30.09.2016). The said Writ Petition was numbered as W.P.No.44708 of 2016.
3. This Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.01.2017. The operative directions issued in the said order were as follows:
"....7. Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, who appears for the respondents, to my querry, says that the impugned notice can be treated as a show cause notice and once, the petitioners file their objections to the same, order can be passed by respondent No.2.
8. To be noted, this querry, I have put to the learned counsel for the respondents, as at the end of the impugned notice, it is stated that the assessee can prefer an appeal to the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation/respondent No.2, within a period of fifteen (15) 4 days. Learned counsel for the respondents informs me that the impugned notice is, in fact, a show cause notice, and that, it is in the usual course adjudicated upon by the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation. In other words, in a sense, the use of the word appeal in the impugned notice appears to be a misnomer.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioners to prefer their objections to the impugned notice within a period of three (3) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Upon receipt of the objections, respondent No.2 will pass a speaking order, after giving personal hearing to the petitioners in the matter. Resultantly, pending application is closed. There will be no order as to costs. "
4. It appears that the petitioners, thereafter, preferred objections dated 10.01.2017. These objections, apparently, were sent by post on 13.01.2017.
5. I am informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said objections were delivered in the office of the Commissioner, Revenue Department on 18.01.2017.
6. It appears that, in the interregnum, the impugned distraint notice dated 13.01.2017 got issued to the petitioners.
7. Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, who appears for the respondents, says that in view of the directions passed by this Court on 02.01.2017, the impugned distraint notice can be ignored by the petitioners and that the respondents will comply with the directions contained in the order dated 02.01.2017.
8. The above-said statement made by Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan is taken on record.
9. Needless to say, that in view of the statement made, no coercive measures will be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned distraint notice dated 13.01.2017.
10. The second respondent will dispose of the objections filed by the petitioners, as directed in the order dated 02.01.2017.
11. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
12. Resultantly, the connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. However there shall be no order as to costs.