9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But it was the petitioner who had sought for a personal hearing in the matter. After filing objections on 7.3.2014 neither the petitioner nor his counsel had appeared before the first respondent/Authority, but the impugned order has been assailed on various grounds including on the ground of limitation. - The petitioner or his representative to be heard personally and thereafter the first respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition No.29647 of 2014 (T-KST) - - - Dated:- 7-7-2014 - B V Nagarathna, J. For the Appellant : Sri Suryanarayana T, Adv. For the Respondent : Sri S V Girikumar, AGA JUDGEMENT :- The order of the first respondent dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication on 25.9.2006 and that as no orders has been passed on the application seeking rectification, he was under the impression that there was deemed rectification of the assessment order. Thereafterwards, another notice was issued on 29.11.2007 calling upon the petitioner to pay additional tax. That notice was assailed by the petitioner in W.P.No.20026/2007. This Court by order dated 28.11.2008 disposed the matter by setting aside the notice dated 29.11.2007. 4. Thereafter, the first respondent issued notice dated 19.3.2010 under Section 21(4) of the Act stating that deemed order of rectification was illegal and that the petitioner was liable to pay additional taxes. That notice was issued by exercising revisional jurisdiction by the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the impugned order. That order is assailed in this writ petition by contending that it is in violation of the directions and observations passed by this Court in W.P.NO.20026/2007 disposed on 28.1.2008 and also that the impugned order which has been passed on 21.4.2014 is time barred and beyond the prescribed period of limitation and hence is illegal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record. 6. At the outset the learned AGA stated that as against the impugned order, which has been passed under Section 21(2) of the Act, petitioner has a remedy by way of an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. Be that as it may, counsel for the petitioner submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
