9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner's son had received the notice. When the impugned assessment order was served at the address of the petitioner's son, the petitioner's son was hospitalized as he met with an accident. It is also evident from the assessment order that the respondent did not give personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned assessment order. In the instant case, admittedly, the pre-assessment notice as well as the impugned assessment order were sent to the wrong address instead of the registered address of the petitioner and no personal hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is the considered view that the respondent has violated the principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded back to the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served by the respondent on the petitioner. According to the petitioner, only an employee of the petitioner's son had received the assessment order. According to the petitioner, the respondent has violated the principles of natural justice by not affording the reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for raising objections and the respondent also did not afford any personal hearing to the petitioner in the assessment proceedings. It is also the case of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the tax as well as the penalty as per the impugned assessment order. In such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3.Heard Mr.M.Azzem, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Jeyakumar, learned Additional Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the right of personal hearing to the assessee is mandatory, even if no reply is given by the assessee. 5.Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the notice was received by the petitioner as seen from the impugned assessment order and despite receipt of the notice, no reply was given by the petitioner for the pre-assessment notice and he also did not come forward to present his case before the respondent. Further, according to him, without exercising the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable. 6.It is admitted fact that the pre-as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g address instead of the registered address of the petitioner and no personal hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is the considered view that the respondent has violated the principles of natural justice. 9.In the result, the impugned assessment order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the respondent in TIN33306144537/2014-15 against the petitioner is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration by affording sufficient opportunity to place all his objections and also afford the petitioner right of personal hearing and the respondent is directed to dispose of the proceedings within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.With the aforesaid d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
