9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all, with reference to the actual address in which the notice might have been issued. The petitioner having admitted the receipt of the notices issued by the first respondent earlier, particularly as in the petition to produce the books of accounts and the petitioner having submitted Ext.P7 notice for adjournment, ought to have been vigilant enough to ascertain the actual particulars especially with regard to the next date of hearing scheduled by the first respondent - Cannot now take a 'U-turn' and say that there was failure on the part of the first respondent in finalising the proceedings as per Ext.P1 - Interference is declined and writ petition is dismissed. - W.P.(C) No.28562 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2012 - P.R.RAMACHAND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anting such opportunity. But then, the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 request for adjournment on 16-5-2006, and yielding to the said request, Ext.P8 fresh notice was issued by the first respondent on 18-1-2007. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner filed an application through the 'tax practitioner' of the petitioner, pointing out that the assessee was not in station, seeking for an adjournment. However, quite after long time, Ext.P10 order was passed by the first respondent on 22-6-2007, followed by demand notice, seeking to realise the sum of ₹ 2,98,366/-, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. It is found that though the matter was filed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted Ext.P7 notice for adjournment, (who was then served with Ext.P8 notice and thereafter sought for further adjournment as per Ext.P9), ought to have been vigilant enough to ascertain the actual particulars especially with regard to the next date of hearing scheduled by the first respondent. 6. The petitioner having not pursued any such exercise, taking the minimum effort to see that the proceedings were taken to logical conclusion, cannot now take a 'U-turn' and say that there was failure on the part of the first respondent in finalising the proceedings as per Ext.P1. This Court finds that the writ petition is devoid of any merit. Interference is declined and writ petition is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
