9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the direction contained in paragraph 12(i) of the order dated 08.8.2017, the respondent totally misunderstood the earlier directions issued in the said writ petitions and stated that the details have already been furnished even in the earlier notices dated 15.9.2014. On a comparison of the notices dated 15.9.2014 with the impugned notices, it is seen that it is a verbatim reproduction of the first notice. This Court did not expect the respondent to proceed in such a manner. The matters are remitted back to the respondent to scrupulously follow the directions contained in the earlier order dated 08.8.2017 - petition allowed by way of remand. - Writ Petition Nos.33899 to 33904 of 2017 & WMP.Nos.37600 to 37605 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 22- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer proceeded was incorrect and therefore, those writ petitions were partly allowed with certain directions. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the relevant portions of the order dated 08.8.2017, which are as hereunder : 10. After hearing the parties elaborately and perusing the materials placed on record including the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and the typed set of papers filed by the respondent, the following conclusion is arrived: (i) So far as the two grounds on which the assessments have been revised viz., with regard to mismatch of details culled out from the official website and the allegation of sales suppression based on check post entires once again culled out from the Departmental webs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the counter affidavit filed by the DRI in the bail petition nor the averments which are set out in the show cause notice issued by the DRI dated 22.06.2016, can ipso facto be the basis for demand of sales tax. It is well open to the respondent to rely upon such material based on information received from the DRI. What is required to be done is to conduct independent enquiry for which the petitioner should be given opportunity of personal hearing. This can be done only after the DRI completes the adjudication of the show cause notice dated 22.06.2016, as all documents are in the custody of the DRI. Therefore, the respondent has to necessarily await the adjudication of the case by the DRI or the Customs Officials with regard to the allega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion contained in paragraph 12(i) of the order dated 08.8.2017, the respondent totally misunderstood the earlier directions issued in the said writ petitions and stated that the details have already been furnished even in the earlier notices dated 15.9.2014. 7. On a comparison of the notices dated 15.9.2014 with the impugned notices, it is seen that it is a verbatim reproduction of the first notice. This Court did not expect the respondent to proceed in such a manner. When pointed directions were issued by this Court to furnish materials, as the revision of assessment is based on the information culled out from the intranet of the Departmental website, the impugned notices are required to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
