ORDER

1. We do not advert to the facts in any detail because the position that we now set out is conceded by learned counsel for the respondents. He does not now dispute that no show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners before the alleged deferment orders were passed. Assuming that the deferment orders were passed, therefore, this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in Fag Precision Bearings v. STO (I) ((1997) 3 SCC 486 : (1997) 104 STC 143) and the writ petition must be made absolute in terms of prayers (b) and (c).

2. We now come to a serious concern. On 13-1-1998, we had passed the following order :

"The statement of objections on behalf of the first respondent refers, in para 5, to orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes deferring the assessments of the petitioners for the years mentioned therein. The rejoinder of the petitioners denies this and avers that no such order, much less any show-cause notice for the proposed deferment, was ever served on the petitioner.

On the application of learned counsel for the first respondent, the writ petition is adjourned for six weeks to produce copies of the deferment orders aforementioned as also show-cause notic