9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent on their own. While setting aside the orders impugned in these writ petitions on the ground of violation of principles of nature of justice,this court is inclined to award cost of ₹ 5,000 payable by the petitioner in each writ petition,totally a sum of ₹ 15,000 payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Aid Service Authority,High Court Buildings,Chennai,within the period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,failing which the authorities are directed to proceed further - petition disposed off. - W. P. Nos. 30461, 30462, 30463 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2018 - Mrs. V. Bhavani Subbaroyan J. For the Petitioner : R. Senniappan For the Respondent : V. Haribabu ,Special Government Plead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner has also periodically filed the returns duly reflecting the transaction. While so an inspection was conducted by the officials of the respondent in the business premises of the petitioner on June 14,2005 and during the course of such inspection they have recovered the D7 records from the place of business and also the stock of goods kept herein. Thereafter the respondent without verifying the D7 records,issued a notice on July 30,2007 and proposed to assess/revise the taxable turn over submitted by the petitioner at the rate of 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax,Act. After obtaining the copies of D7 records from the respondent,the petitioner,by letter dated October 10,2007 request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in [2004-05] 10 TNCTJ 168. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner especially,when the impugned orders passed by the respondent had fiscal impact. In support of this contention,counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgments in W. P. No. 1207 of 2006 and W. P. No. 32349 of 2006 dated October 11,2006 and prayed for allowing these writ petitions. 5. Per contra,the learned Special Government Pleader,would contend that sufficient opportunities have been given to the petitioner,but the petitioner did not avail those opportunities given to them. Further,he stated that the petitioner did not respond to the summons issued per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Pleader also submitted that as against the orders,which are impugned in these writ petitions,the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority,namely,Deputy Commissioner (CT),Salem. However,without filing appeal,the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petitions which are not maintainable. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner,in reply,would submit that inspite of the petitioner seeking to grant one month time to enable them to produce the relevant records,the respondent,without granting any further time,has straight away passed the impugned orders. Therefore,when there is violation of principles of nature of justice,an alternative remedy is not a bar for the petitioner to file the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
