9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner. Kanmani Annamalai, Additional Government Pleader, for the respondent. ORDER These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated January 7, 2014 and March 10, 2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before passing the impugned orders, the respondent failed to issued show-cause notice to the petitioner as per circular dated April 20, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued without issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner. However, it is the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that in the impugned proceedings, details as contemplated under circular dated April 20, 2001 have been mentioned. In this context, it is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the circular dated April 20, 2001, wherein it has been mentioned as follows: 5. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent has straightaway passed the impugned proceedings, which is not correct. Further, it is pertinent to point out the judgment of this court in Millennium Motors v. Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore [2011] 39 VST 319 (Mad), wherein, this court has held that before imposing penalty, notice has to be issued to the petitioner well in advance. It is useful to extract the said portion of the judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice to the petitioner with regard to the liability of the petitioner to pay penalty amount, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is given two weeks time to submit his explanation and on receipt of such notice, the respondent is directed to consider the same and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. If the impugned orders are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
