9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27.2.2015. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being a registered dealer on the files of the respondent are engaged in the construction activity of Laying Roads, Bridges for the Corporation of Chennai and Highways Department upto the year 2012, for which returns were filed by them and the taxes due thereon were paid on the deemed sale value of the materials purchased from the taxable dealers and the purchased materials were used in the construction activity in and around the City of Chennai. Further, according to the learned counsel, the petitioners have stopped the entire construction activity and are not operating from their principal place of business at Adayar, but were carrying on the entire operati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the closure of the Adayar Principal Place and about their business operation at Kolathur. Hence, according to him, there was no proper service of notice as well as the impugned order on the part of the respondent as provided under Rule 19 of the VAT Rules, 2007. However, according to him, the impugned orders were communicated to them on 10.04.2015, in response to which, the petitioner also by their letter dated 29.04.2015 has sought for an opportunity to file their objections. But, the respondent sent a notice dated 15.05.2015 for recovery of tax and penalty by RPAD to their branch office, without considering their letter dated 29.04.2015. Therefore, according to him, it is apparent that the respondent is aware of the present address of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Pleader (Taxes) also fairly submitted that the respondent may be directed to issue fresh notices and on receipt of the same, the petitioner may be directed to file their objections and on receipt of the same, the respondent may be directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders within a time frame. 8. Hence, for the reason that violation of principles of natural justice is proved, the impugned orders dated 27.02.2015 cannot be sustained. In view of the same, by quashing the impugned orders dated 27.022015, the matters are remitted back to the respondent for passing orders afresh. The respondent is directed to issue fresh notices within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
