9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enrollment under the Settlement Act. The other reason given is that the orders have been passed by the Commercial Tax Officer concerned based on the calculations made by the officers of the Enforcement Wing. In the considered view of this Court, if the same is true, it would amount to abdication of statutory duties by the Assessing Officer by merely following the proposals made by the Enforcement Wing officials. Petitioner not a registered dealer - Held that:- It is seen that the respondent – Department issued notices to the petitioner calling upon them to avail the benefit under the Settlement Act and intimating them that the last date for filing the applications was 31.12.2010 - The petitioner also presented the applications and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mands on the basis of the calculation made by the officers of the Enforcement Wing and that the appeals filed against the orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer concerned before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore and also the second appeals filed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal were dismissed. The second respondent further referred to the recommendation made by the first respondent that the petitioner is not eligible for enrollment under the Settlement Act. 3. Admittedly, before the impugned orders are passed, the petitioner did not have any opportunity to submit their defenses. This opportunity ought to have been provided by the second respondent since there is a reference to the recommendation made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e processed, the second respondent (predecessor officer) issued the communications dated 08.2.2011 to the Assessing Officer calling upon various details to be produced. Thus, the petitioner has been led to believe that their applications have been entertained and would be processed. Hence, the impugned orders rejecting the applications of the petitioner are not tenable. 6. In the written instructions given to the learned Government Pleader by the second respondent, a totally different reason has been given stating that the petitioner is not entitled to make payment by cheque. 7. Admittedly, this said stage has crossed because tax has been remitted, the applications were entertained and the Assessing Officer was directed to furnish var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
