9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enkatesh ORDER Heard Mr.S.Raveekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents and with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer and trader of refined oil and registered on the file of the second respondent under the provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner on 6.9.2016. In the said notice issued by the first respondent, which is also for the very same assessment order, the petitioner has been granted fifteen days time to submit their objections, however, even before that second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 11.7.2016, received by the petitioner on 06.9.2016. 4. Though the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order of assessment has been passed on 11.7.2016, despatched belatedly and received by the petitioner on 6.9.2016. Thus, it is evidently clear that there is total violation of principles of natural justice and the second respondent has clearly abdicated his duties as an Assessing Officer. 6. One more issue that has to be pointed out is that while completing the assessment, the second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dealer or there is no exercise of suo motu power by the second respondent, reference to section 84 of the Act is wholly unsustainable. Hence, for all the above reasons, this Court is convinced that the impugned order has been passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and therefore calls for interference. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
