9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequential order of the 2nd respondent dated 29.06.2015 and to direct the 1st respondent to issue the pre-assessment notice and grant opportunity of personal hearing. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, being a registered dealer under the provisions of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and an assessee on the files of the 1st respondent, is trading in safety equipments. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had effected interstate sales against C Forms for claiming concessional rate of tax and had also effected local sales for the assessment year CST 2013-14. The petitioner had been filing its monthly returns in time u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the petitioner, without considering the sufficient cause and submissions raised in the appeal, the 2nd respondent, dismissed the appeal on 29.06.2015 stating the reason of delay and hence he has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. According to him, when the petitioner tried to apply for statutory C forms online in the month of May, it was found that the access was blocked with the caption of "you have arrears" against demand No.1007006 for the amount of Rs. 1,43,699/- and the status remains the same as on date and hence the petitioner is unable to obtain the statutory C Forms online. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned ex parte assessment order passed by the 1st respondent is ex facie i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision rendered by this Court in similar circumstances in W.P.No.13846 of 2015, wherein this Court has held as follows:- "3. Admittedly, the petitioner filed an appeal challenging the assessment order before the authority concerned, but, beyond the limitation period of 60 days. The mandatory pre-deposit amount was also paid. Stating that the appeal is barred by limitation, the same was returned and hence, without any other remedy, the petitioner challenges the impugned order of assessment before this Court. 4. The one and only ground to be considered is violation of principles of natural justice. The authority, without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, passed the impugned order, despite specific request made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner herein has also paid the mandatory pre-deposit amount, however, stating that the appeal is barred by limitation, the same was rejected. The pre-deposit amount was not refunded to the petitioner is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which fact has not been disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleader. 11. At this point of time, the learned Additional Government Pleader fairly submitted that the 1st respondent may be directed to issue fresh notice and on receipt of the same, the petitioner may be directed to file their objections and on receipt of the same, the 1st respondent may be directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders within a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
