9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed procedure and therefore, there is violation of NJP. The impugned orders set aside solely on the ground of violation of NJP i.e., personal hearing, which is a prescribed procedure, not being given - petition disposed off. - W.P.Nos.14661, 14665 and 14667 of 2019 And W.P.Nos.14659, 14662 and 14665 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy For the Respondents : Mr.M.Hariharan Additional Government Pleader ORDER This common order will govern these three writ petitions. 2. Mr.Adithya Reddy, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner in all these three writ petitions and Mr.M.Hariha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner had only one working day between the date of receipt of the notice and the personal hearing. e) Therefore, the writ petitioner immediately sent a communication to respondent pointing out that they have only one working day and the writ petitioner sought further time. This is vide writ petitioner's letter dated 22.09.2018. f) The respondent did not respond, but went ahead and passed the impugned orders saying that the writ petitioner had requested adjournment of personal hearing by one month, but have done nothing for six months. g) Instant writ petitions have been filed assailing the aforesaid three original assessment orders made by the respondent inter alia under Section 12 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been fixed on 25.09.2018 at 11.30am and the time is too short as there is only one working day between the date of receipt of notice and the personal hearing. To be noted, that one working day is 24.09.2018 (Monday). There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that this communication dated 22.09.2018 from writ petitioner was received by the respondent and the respondent did not send any response. To be noted, in this 22.09.2019 communication, writ petitioner had sought for adjournment by a month. 8. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the respondent should have sent a response rescheduling/refixing the personal hearing. In this regard writ petitioner pressed into service a cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent should have sent a reply to the aforesaid 22.09.2018 communication from the writ petitioner in accordance with paragraph 3(a)(i). 10. There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that respondent has not sent a reply to the 22.09.2018 communication. 11. Faced with the above situation, learned State counsel i.e., Revenue counsel submitted that even after sending the communication dated 22.09.2018 seeking adjournment by a month pointing out that there is only one working day between the date of receipt of notice and the personal hearing, there has been a lull on the part of the writ petitioner for nearly six months. 12. In the light of paragraph 3(a)(i) of the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
