9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also not in dispute that the said representation dated 01.03.2016, was received by the respondent, nevertheless, neither they rejected the request nor considered the same and afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, but, proceed to pass the impugned order on 23.03.2016. In Taxation Statute, though certain Statutes do not specifically provide for an opportunity of personal hearing, Courts have rendered decisions and stated that when complicated questions of facts are involved, it would be in fitness of things for the Authority to afford an opportunity of personal hearing. The said decision has been rendered with a view to clarify the facts and also in a way to help the Adjudicating Officer to give a proper and just conclusion at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 10.06.2016, this Court directed the respondent to file counter only with regard to the aspect as to whether the petitioner had been given an effective hearing, as requested by them. Elaborate counter affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner (Legal) of the respondent Department. Since, this Court is examining the correctness of the impugned order only on the ground as to whether principles of natural justice has been followed or not, the factual averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition or as set out in the counter affidavit have not been taken into consideration. 5.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeared before the respondent and referred to the reply dated 04.06.2015 and requested further time to make their written submissions as well as the compendium of the case. The said request was recorded by the respondent and the matter stood adjourned as requested by the petitioner to 19.02.2016. On 19.02.2016, the petitioner submitted a letter to the respondent stating that their counsel had met a minor accident and unable to attend the hearing and requested for re-posting the case to first week of March 2016. 5.3 It is not in dispute that the respondent did not give any reply to the said request made by the petitioner. Nevertheless, the petitioner submitted a representation on 01.03.2016, furnishing certain details said to be the break ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
