9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first respondent to transfer their case from the second respondent to some other Assessing Officer. The second respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madipakkam Assessment Circle, who is not the Assessing Officer of the petitioner, as the Commercial Tax Officer, Madipakkam is the petitioner's Assessing Officer. 3. The petitioner seeks for transfer on the ground that the second respondent has taken the extreme step of recovery of taxes by attaching the petitioner's bank account when there is no power to do so in terms of Section 45 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. In paragraph No.8(d) the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had made an allegation that the second respondent had demanded ille ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest. From the original file it is seen that the said Mr.Jothi has been representing the petitioner in the earlier proceedings. Therefore, this Court expressed that there is record to indicate that Mr.Jothi has been regularly receiving copies of the orders on behalf of the petitioner. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plea raised by the petitioner that he has not received the assessment order is given up. This stand is taken on record and it is held that the petitioner has received the assessment order. 6. The next issue was whether the allegation made against second respondent in paragraph No.8(d) was justified. After some arguments, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 08.08.2017, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court is satisfied the assessment order dated 18.07.2016 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Though the petitioner has not specifically sought for quashing the said order, arguments were advanced by both sides on the validity of the order dated 18.07.2016 and after considering the submissions, it is found that the said order dated 18.07.2016 in so far as it relates to the assessment on the alleged sale suppression was without due opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order dated 18.07.2016. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and the prayer sought for to transfer the case is rejected. As this Court with the consent of both parties examined the correctne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
