9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for reassessment - appeal allowed by way of remand. - W. P. (MD) No. 19384 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2017 - R. Suresh Kumar, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Karunakar For the Respondents : Mr. Raja Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader ORDER The prayer in the writ petition is for a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in TIN33044801618/2009-10 dated 28.03.2013 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against law and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a Civil Contractor and an as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the petitioner on 11.02.2013. In spite of the said objections having been filed, where a personal hearing was also sought for by the petitioner, suddenly, the impugned order of reassessment was passed on 28.03.2013 by the respondent, wherein, a sum of ₹ 77,990/- alone was made to be refunded as per the impugned order. The total turn over was fixed as ₹ 2,54,43,875/- and after deducting the labour charges at 30%, the actual taxable turn over, according to the respondent, was ₹ 1,78,10,713/- and after having given calculations for the tax due etc., ultimately, the respondent has stated that only a sum of ₹ 77,990/- alone to be refunded to the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come out wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and another reported in 2010(33) VST 333 (Madras). 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader (TAX) appearing for the respondent would contend that though originally an assessment order was issued, refundable amount to the petitioner was fixed, after having verified the records of the petitioner, it was found that there were lot of discrepancies, which necessitated the respondent to give the second revision notice. On receipt of the objections received from the petitioner and after having considered the said objections, the impugned order has been passed, wherein, cogent reasons have been given by the respondent as to how it has arrived at a conclusion, as has been given in the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment and also more particularly, when such personal hearing is requested for by the assessee. 10. In this regard, the said Division Bench Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would clearly say that a personal hearing is a mandatory requirement and without which, the assessment, that too, by way of reassessment cannot be completed. Even in the said case also, the Division Bench of this Court, after having considered various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as other judicial forum, has ultimately concluded that the revision of assessment could not have been passed without giving the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing. 11. Paragraph No.27 of the said order expressing the said prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
