9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trued in accordance with the circular dated April 20, 2001 providing for oral hearing where the dealer demanded it by way of contemporanea expositio. Therefore, the order passed by way of revision of assessment without giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing was liable to be quashed. - opportunity of personal hearing ought to have been afforded to the petitioner/dealer before finalizing the proposal in the notices dated 31.10.2012 and 02.11.2012. Since personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner despite request made by the petitioner, this Court is constrained to hold that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, hence, on this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. - Following decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed four defects and based on such defects pointed out by the enforcement, the respondent proposed to reject the return filed by the petitioner as incorrect and incomplete and proposed to revise the assessment to the best of judgment on the lines indicated in the notice. There was a proposal to levy penalty at the rate of 150% under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, for the alleged wrong claim of ITC and alleged payment of tax lesser than the tax due. The petitioner was directed to file their objection, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice with proof of records and copy of P L Account for the above year, failing which, orders will be passed as proposed in the notice. The petitioner submitted their replies on 31.10.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the concept of reasonable opportunity to show cause under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act. Further Section 16(1)(a) of the Act had to be construed in accordance with the circular dated April 20, 2001 providing for oral hearing where the dealer demanded it by way of contemporanea expositio. Therefore, the order passed by way of revision of assessment without giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing was liable to be quashed. 7. In the light of the above decision, opportunity of personal hearing ought to have been afforded to the petitioner/dealer before finalizing the proposal in the notices dated 31.10.2012 and 02.11.2012. Since personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner despite request made by the petitioner, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
