9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aran, learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of all the three respondents in all the three writ petitions are before this Court. 3. Though this writ petition is at the admission stage and the Revenue Counsel has accepted notice at the admission stage in the previous hearing on 22.05.2019, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petitions itself are taken up, heard out and disposed of. 4. The petitioner is one Mr.Anil Kumar, a sole Proprietor carrying on business in the name and style 'Ezeekart Retail'. It can be culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions that the writ petitioner is a dealer in Mobile phones, Mobile Phone accessories and other electronics product. 5. To be no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Authority proceeded further, without personal hearing and the impugned assessment orders came to be passed. To be noted, there are three different assessment orders for the three different assessment years and each of those assessment orders have been assailed/impugned in each of these writ petitions. 10. A perusal of the impugned orders reveal that objections of the writ petitioner have not been considered and personal hearing has not been given. 11. Learned Revenue Counsel, who had accepted notice in the previous hearing i.e., on 22.05.2019 from the records, submitted that it is a matter of fact that no personal hearing was afforded and more importantly the objections of the writ petitioner have not been considered. 12. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that alternate remedy is not absolute. In other words, it is not a rule of compulsion and it is a rule of discretion. 16. Therefore, in the light of undisputed position that there is violation of NJP, it may not be necessary to relegate the writ petitioner to the appeal remedy i.e., alternate remedy by way of an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. 17. Therefore, this is a fit case to set aside the impugned orders and send the matter back to the third respondent for making assessment afresh in accordance with law. 18. More importantly, learned counsel for writ petitioner, placed before this Court a judgment made by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 29.06.2017 in Balaji Super Market Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposal given by the Enforcement Wing Officers, but shall make an assessment independent of the proposal given by the Enforcement Wing Officers. 20. In the instant case, such a procedure shall be adopted keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court, besides giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner. 21. In the light of the narrative supra, the following order is passed: a) impugned orders, in each of these three writ petitions, bearing Reference TIN Nos. 33631523518/2012-13, 33631523518/2013-14 and 33631523518/2014-15 all dated 28.02.2019 are set aside. b) third respondent shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner by giving sufficient advance notice clearly specifying the date, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
