9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impossible. The entire proceedings initiated by the respondent are thoroughly flawed for serious procedural infirmities and for that reason, the impugned order is liable for interference. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition Nos.635 to 641 of 2018 and W.M.P. Nos.792 of 2017 to 798 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2018 - MR. T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. K.Soundararajan (in all Wps) For The Respondent : Ms.G.Dhanamadhri Government Advocate (Taxes) ORDER Heard Mr. K.Soundararajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing on behalf of the respondent. Since the issue involved in this writ petition lies in a very narrow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same to the respondent/department, which was accepted by the respondent in the impugned assessment order passed in the assessment year 2015-16. That apart, the business premises of the petitioner was sealed by the Forest Department on 07.01.2014 and the question of inspecting the sealed business premises does not arise. (4) It is contended that in the impugned order for the assessment year 2015-2016 the respondent has stated that the defects noticed by the Inspecting Officer have not been admitted by the Proprietrix Tmt.R.Sudha, it is submitted that the Proprietrix Tmt.R.Sudha, had shifted to Ireland and to prove the same a copy of the Passport has been produced. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing on behalf of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the passport of Tmt.R.Sudha it is seen that at the relevant point of time she was not in India. Therefore, she could not have given any submission before the Enforcement Officer. The entire re-assesment is a result of the complaint given by M/s.Ali Timbers, Nadukkunnu, Pathanapuram, Kerala State. If there was a complaint against the petitioner then the Joint Commissioner (Enforcement) should have conducted the enquiry, summoned the dealer as to what basis he had lodged the complaint and only thereafter, action could have been initiated. That apart when the information furnished by the third party dealer, who is not registered in the state of Tamil Nadu is relied upon, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to rebut the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
