9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition, has specifically stated that the communication was received in the office of the respondent on 04.09.2013, there is no specific denial of the said averment in the counter affidavit, more particularly, in para 9 of the counter affidavit. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions made by the petitioner since they had objected the proposal of revision of assessment. However, other issues are not gone into. Hence, it is held that the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice and the same calls for interference of this Court only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, since the objection filed on 03.09.2013 was not considered by the respondent. - Matter remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surprised to receive the notice dated 16.08.2013 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-2011, in which, the place of the business of the dealer was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officers on 12.07.2013 and that the petitioner had vacated from the place of business from Gemini Parsn Apartments, Cathedral Garden Road, Chennai and their whereabouts were not known. 2.1. It is further submitted that the notice was based on the proposal dated 10.07.2013 of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Enforcement (Central), Chennai and no notice was issued prior to the proposal and no enquiry was made by the Officer, but, straight away, the proposal which was evolved by the Enforcement Wing, has been confirmed. Therefore, it is submitted that the revisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, has specifically stated that the communication was received in the office of the respondent on 04.09.2013, there is no specific denial of the said averment in the counter affidavit, more particularly, in para 9 of the counter affidavit. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions made by the petitioner since they had objected the proposal of revision of assessment. However, other issues are not gone into. Hence, it is held that the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice and the same calls for interference of this Court only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, since the objection filed on 03.09.2013 was not considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
