9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mad) reported in [2008 (9) TMI 914 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], in my considered opinion, should have answered to the letter of the petitioner dated 13.04.2015. Admittedly, in the present case, pursuant to the request made by the petitioner dated 13.04.2015, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner. - Matter remanded back - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P.Nos.17341 and 17342 of 2015 M.P.Nos.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 23-6-2015 - T Raja, J. For the Appellant : Mr. P S Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr. R Sivaraman For the Respondent : Mr. V Haribabu, AGP (T) ORDER Heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Haribabu, learned Additional Government Plead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when a detailed reply was given on 29.01.2015, without giving a reasonable opportunity as sought for in their letter dated 13.04.2015, again committing yet another mistake in not considering the detailed reply, the respondent has wrongly passed the impugned orders. 3.3 Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the statute provides for grant of personal hearing and as has been held by this Court in the decision reported in 33 VST 333 (SRC Projects P. Ltd vs. CCT (Mad), pursuant thereto a circular No.7/2014 dated 03.02.2014 has been issued by the Commissioner to the effect that it is the duty cast upon the Assessing Officer to give person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be directed to approach the appellate authority. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. Although this Court finds some merit in the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) with regard to the admitted fact that the petitioner has remained silent even after receipt of the notice dated 30.03.2015, the petitioner, in their letter dated 13.04.2015 has mentioned two things viz., (1) the petitioner has requested the respondent to refer their reply for defect No.10 as recorded in sworn statement and (2) they have asked for personal hearing to produce the remaining F Forms for ₹ 37.37 crores. When that w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
