9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the personal hearing on 17.04.2014 and sought time till 23.04.2014. The first respondent could have either accepted or rejected the request. Instead, the first respondent passed orders on 09.05.2014. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be taken to have been passed after affording adequate opportunity as contemplated by the Division Bench in SRC Projects Private Limited, Salem Vs. The Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leader (Taxes) appearing for the respondents. 3. It is seen from the impugned orders that though proposals for revision of assessment were issued on 26.02.2014, the petitioner submitted their objections on 13.03.2014. Thereafter, a notice of hearing dated 09.04.2014, was issued fixing the date of hearing as 17.04.2014. 4. On 17.04.2014, a representative of the petitioner appeared and request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imited, Salem Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai reported in 2010 33 VST 333. 6. Moreover, even the detailed objections filed by the petitioner, the salient features of which are extracted in the impugned orders, have not been considered. The first respondent has rejected all the objections in two lines. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter has to be remitted back to the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
