9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2018 - - - Dated:- 19-7-2018 - Mr. M. Govindaraj J. For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran For the Respondent : Mr.S.Dhayalan Government Advocate ORDER Complaining violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order in TIN:33774940751/2010-11, dated 25.06.2018, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of edible oil and trader in pulses and grams, etc. He is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [in short 'TNVAT Act'] and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [in short 'CST Act'] and has been filing the returns properly. The returns filed for the assessment year 2010-11 were deemed to have been assessed in view of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etails and permit the petitioner to cross-examine them as per Sections 81 and 82 of the TNVAT Act. However, the respondent considered the objections alone and passed the order impugned dated 25.06.2018. 5. A perusal of the impugned order reflects the date of revision notice and objections received from the dealer without specifying any date. Even though the petitioner has given elaborate submissions and objections, the impugned order does not appear to have dealt with the objections elaborately. In many of the proposals, the objections were rejected on the ground that the required materials were not available with the authority. The case laws submitted by the petitioner were also not considered while taking a decision. When a request is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not, the personal hearing shall be given. When such a requirement is mandatory, what is expected of the Assessing Officer is to fix a date for personal hearing and communicate the same to the dealer concerned. After affording ample opportunity during personal hearing, a decision shall be taken. 9. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.234 to 240 of 2015 [G.V.Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Avarayampalayam Assessment Circle, Coimbatore] dated 16.03.2018, has held as under:- Denial of Personal hearing: 10.The respondent denied the appellant opportunity of hearing only on the ground that objection was not given to the pre-assessment notices. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to furnish all the details obtained from the web which are relied on for passing the assessment order in respect of confirmed proposals, to the petitioner forthwith. On receipt of the same, the petitioner is directed to submit his complete objections along with the records to the respondent within a period of fifteen days thereafter. On receipt of the objections from the petitioner, the respondent is directed to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter uninfluenced by the report of the Enforcement Wing officials, in accordance with law on merits within a period of four weeks thereafter. 12. In the result, this writ pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
