9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Cotton Mills (P) Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) [2018 (3) TMI 1617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that even though personal hearing is not sought for by the assessee, it is mandatory on the part of the respondent to grant a personal hearing. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration and the respondent shall pass final orders, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.(MD)No.14526 of 2016 And MP.(MD).No.10783 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2019 - Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran For the Respondent : Mr.D.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader ORDER The instant Writ Petition has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the objections raised by the petitioner in his reply, dated 04.01.2016 has not been duly considered by the respondent in the impugned assessment order. It is also the case of the petitioner that no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to raise all objections before the respondent and therefore there is violation of the principles of natural justice. 4.Heard Mr.A.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 5.This Court has perused the impugned assessment order. The petitioner by its reply, dated 04.01.2016, has given a detailed reply citing various authorities and has submitted that based on one day sales, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments as stated supra... 6.The petitioner is doing restaurant business and it is common knowledge that the sales turnover varies from day to day. On working days it will be lesser and on festival day and public holidays it will be generally higher. Therefore, one day sales turnover cannot be the basis for assessing the total taxable turnover. The following Judgements of this Court, namely a)State of Tamil Nadu Vs. New Kamaliya Hotel reported in [2006] 147 STC 111 (Mad) and b)State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Hotel Ashok Bhavan reported in [2013] 60 VST 79 (Mad) , support of the case of the petitioner. 7.Eventhough, the above referred authorities were placed by the petitioner before the respondent, the said authorities have not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
