2017 (3) TMI 626

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioner would have been taken by surprise, when the impugned orders were passed. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the orders were passed after a period of one month had expired, which is the period of accommodation sought for by the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner did not get addressed, which is that he had no opportunity to present his case - impugned order set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
MR. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. For The Petitioner : Mr.K.Soundararajan For The Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatesh, Government Advocate COMMONORDER 1.Issue Notice. Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsels for parties .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urnment, which was received in the office of the respondent on 01.11.2016. 4.1.The petitioner's case, is that, he had no intimation as to whether or not, his request for adjournment was accepted by the respondent. In other words, according to the petitioner, the passing of the impugned orders, came as a surprise. 5.In support of his submission that the respondent/ assessing officer was required to deal with the application making a request for adjournment, reliance is placed on the Departmental's Circular dated 20.04.2001 and, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 11.10.2006, passed in W.A.No.1307 of 2006 and W.P.No.32349 of 2006, titled: M/s.Rainbow Traders Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer. 6.Mr.Venkatesh, on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... underlying purpose being that principles of natural justice have to be given there with full play before coming to a conclusion one way or the other. Furthermore, importantly, Clause 11 also points in the direction that it is not as if adjournment has to be given for the asking. The officer concerned may in certain cases for good reason reject the application but after consideration. 9.2.This principle can be applied to the instant situation as well. By virtue of the revision notices the respondent/ assessing officer had proposed reversal of ITC. The petitioner sought time to respond to the proposals. It is not as if several adjournments had been sought. A month's accommodation sought by the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X