9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner : Mr.C. Baktha Siromoni For Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai Additional Government Pleader ORDER Heard Mr. C.Baktha Siromoni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the 3 rd respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 04.04.2017 based on a representation given by the petitioner with regard to levy of tax and penalty on the sale of idli and dosai maavu (batter) for the assessment years 2009- 2010 to 2016-2017. The petitioner requested for waiver of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was party to the decision passed by the advance ruling authority, the matter should have been dealt with by some other officer of equivalent cadre, since the 2nd respondent has rendered certain finding with regard to the clarification of the goods. Strictly speaking, there will not be any conflict of interest nor the principle that 'No one can be a Judge of his own cause' would apply, but however, to ensure that there is fairness in approach and to ensure that justice is done to the parties, it would have been better if the file had been assigned to some other officer of equivalent cadre as that of the 2 nd respondent, who can take a decision on the application for waiver on merits and in accordance with law. With this view in min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer dated 03.11.2017. However, this would not cover the aspect pointed out by this Court in the order dated 17.07.2017. 7. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing anything on the manner in which the 2 nd respondent has passed the impugned order and with a view to ensure that justice is not only done, but it should be seen to be done, the matter is directed to be placed before some other officer of equivalent cadre. 8. For the above reasons alone, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the 1st respondent to place the files before some other officer of equivalent cadre so that a decision can be taken on the application filed by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
