9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal hearing, whether it is asked or not by the petitioner. But, in the impugned order, there is no whisper as to the same. Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in G.V.Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Avarayampalayam Assessment Circle Corporation of Shopping Complex, Coimbatore), [2018 (3) TMI 1617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], has held that failure to submit objection to the pre-assessment notice would not give a right to the Assessing Officer to deny opportunity of personal hearing. This Court is of the view that the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.(MD)Nos.22087 to 22089 of 2018 And W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ader appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner was issued with show cause notices dated 29.05.2017. But, the petitioner did not respond. Hence, having left with no other option, the respondent, after recording this aspect, has proceeded with the matter and passed the impugned orders dated 28.03.2018. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present writ petitions. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was served with pre-revision notices dated 29.05.2017, inviting objections, but, the petitioner did not respond. But still, it is mandatory on the part of the authorities to post the matter for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt is of the view that the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in TIN 33755081994 / 2013-14 to 2015-16, respectively, dated 28.03.2018 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration. 9. It is seen that the footing on which the present impugned orders came to be passed is on mismatch of particulars between the Annexure I of buyer end and Annexure II of seller end. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the decision reported in [2017] 99 VST 343 (Mad) in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT), Kolathur, Chennai v. Infiniti Wholesale Ltd., decided on 09.09.2016 , has elaborately discussed about the procedure to be followed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence and demonstrate as to how this prima facie view is without any basis. 10. Therefore, the respondent, while considering the matter afresh, shall proceed further, keeping in mind the decision of this Court reported in [2017] 99 VST 343 (Mad) (cited supra). Since the service of pre-revision notices dated 29.05.2017 is not in dispute, the petitioner is hereby directed to make his reply cum objection, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent shall fix a specific date for hearing, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a reply/representation from the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner, in advance. On the said date, the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
