9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In such circumstances, there is no justification for this court to interfere with the order of assessment dated July 7, 2009, especially when the best of judgment assessment order dated November 7, 2007 has not even been challenged and when the petitioner can never contend violation of natural justice. However, the petitioner has lost the opportunity of filing a statutory appeal against both the orders dated November 7, 2007 and July 7, 2009, therefore the petitioner can be given an opportunity to file an appeal, since allowing the petitioner to file an appeal, would also ensures the collection of some portion of the tax for the Revenue. - W.P. No. 16185 of 2009, M.P. No. 1 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2009 - RAMASUBRAMANIAN V., J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated November 3, 2008 was received by the petitioner, alleging that a purchase of palmolein to the tune of ₹ 4,48,495 was also not accounted for. The petitioner claims that in response to this notice, he appeared in person and requested for the details and that without furnishing the details, the impugned order of assessment dated July 7, 2009 was passed. Therefore, challenging the said proceedings, on the ground that the impugned order was passed without furnishing the extracts called for, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit contending, inter alia, that an assessment order was passed originally on November 7, 2007 on best of judgment basis for non-production of accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment basis, I directed the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) to produce the file. Accordingly, the file was produced. The file discloses the following: (i) A pre-assessment notice dated June 18, 2007 was served on the petitioner on June 20, 2007, as evidenced by the acknowledgement card. This had been sent to the official address at 2/39, Main Road, Kariagoundanur, Vadakkalur Post, Annur. But a copy of the very same notice sent to the residential address of the proprietor at Karai Road, Allikkarampalayam, returned with the endorsement insufficient address . (ii) Another notice dated August 13, 2007 was sent both to the official as well as residential addresses. While the notices sent to the residential addresses returne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the letter dated October 4, 2007, he was informed that the petitioner was not available there. (vi) But interestingly, the petitioner sent a letter dated November 22, 2007, to the respondent, referring to the earlier notice dated August 13, 2007, seeking a copy of the extract of movement register to enable him to file a detailed reply. This letter dated November 22, 2007, is actually in the letter head of the petitioner, giving his address at 2/39, Main Road, Kariagoundanur, Vadakkalur, Annur . It is to this very same address that the notice dated August 13, 2007 was sent, but returned with the endorsement no such addressee . (vii) In response to this letter dated November 22, 2007 of the petitioner, the respondent sent a memo dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a copy of the latest notice sent by the respondent. This letter of the petitioner dated January 23, 2009 is also in the letter head indicating the address as 2/39, Main Road, Kariagoundanur, Vadakkalur. Since this letter, as seen from its contents, was handed over personally by the petitioner to the respondent, the respondent handed over a copy of the notice dated December 31, 2008 to the petitioner and obtained an acknowledgment on January 23, 2009 from the petitioner, with a rubber stamp of the petitioner affixed therein. Therefore, the service of this notice dated December 31, 2008 cannot anymore be disputed by the petitioner. (x) However, there was no response from the petitioner to the notice dated December 31, 2008, served on h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007 and July 7, 2009. Therefore I am of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to file an appeal, since allowing the petitioner to file an appeal, would also ensures the collection of some portion of the tax for the Revenue. Therefore the writ, petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner files a statutory appeal within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority may consider the question of delay sympathetically and pass appropriate orders. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions on the merits in the appeal so filed. The writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
