2014 (8) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have considered the earlier order passed against the same petitioner and should have given a finding. But the authority, without taking into consideration the previous order passed and without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner, passed the impugned order, which is per se illegal - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P.No.15119 of 2014 and M. P. No. 1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2014 - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle and others]. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is challenged only on the ground that even in the year 2010, there was a notice, for which, a reply was given by the petitioner on 26.10.2010 and at that time an order was passed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the subsequent Officer without taking i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thority should have considered the earlier order passed against the same petitioner and should have given a finding. But the authority, without taking into consideration the previous order passed and without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner, passed the impugned order, which is per se illegal. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X