9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is held thereafter without asking for further time. Thus, the impugned orders are set aside solely on the ground of adequate time not being given for the personal hearing which the respondent in her discretion has chosen to give. On receipt of reply/objections from the writ petitioner dealer together with all supporting documents, respondent shall hold a personal hearing within a fortnight therefrom and the date, time and venue of the personal hearing shall be communicated to the writ petitioner in advance - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.Nos.23646, 23649, 23651, 23632 and 23653 of 2019 And W.M.P.Nos.23473, 23474, 23476, 23477 and 23478 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy For the Respondents : Ms.G.Dhanamadhri Government Advocate COMMON ORDER Mr.Adithya Reddy, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner in all these five writ petitions and Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent in all these five writ petitions are before this Court. 2.With c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of law under which impugned orders have been made have not been set out in the impugned orders. 9. Notwithstanding very many averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and very many grounds/contentions that have been raised in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, learned counsel for writ petitioner at the hearing, focused his submissions on one pivotal aspect and that one pivotal aspect is reasonable opportunity not being given. 10. Before proceeding further in this direction, it is made clear that with regard to orders under Section 27(1)(b) of TNVAT Act, it will suffice if a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed revision of Assessment is given. In other words, for revised Assessment Orders under Section 27(1)(b) of TNVAT Act, reasonable opportunity of being heard i.e., personal hearing is not statutorily imperative. To be noted, this position applies to revised Assessment Orders under Sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) of TNVAT Act also. However, this does not impede or fetter the rights of the respondent to grant an opportunity of being heard to a dealer, if on the given set of fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the facts and circumstances of instant case, even de hors the Circular, this Court is of the considered view that a fortnight's time or in otherwords, 15 days time would have been reasonable. 17. Learned Revenue counsel pointed out that even prior to 15.02.2019, a notice was issued on 10.02.2017 itself, but a perusal of 10.02.2017 notice reveals that it does not talk about personal hearing. Therefore, personal hearing was first decided to be granted only vide 15.02.2019 notice. 18. Having said this, it is to be noted that writ petitioner dealer nonetheless responded by sending letter dated 19.02.2019 seeking 15 days time to submit their reply regarding visible and invisible loss. 15 days time elapsed on 04.03.2019 and on 13.03.2019 writ petitioner sent another letter requesting for 10 more days time, but this 10 days time elapsed on 24.03.2019 and the impugned orders were passed three days later i.e., 28.03.2019. 19. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that having chosen to give personal hearing, a reasonable opportunity in terms of time has not been given to the writ petitioner dealer. 20. Lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hermore, importantly, Clause 11 also points in the direction that it is not as if adjournment has to be given for the asking. The officer concerned may in certain cases for good reason reject the application but after consideration. 9.2.This principle can be applied to the instant situation as well. By virtue of the revision notices the respondent/ assessing officer had proposed reversal of ITC. The petitioner sought time to respond to the proposals. It is not as if several adjournments had been sought. 6 A month's accommodation sought by the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable. The argument advanced by Mr.Venkatesh that the impugned orders were passed after the period of one month had passed is misconceived because the petitioner need to know where he stood qua his request for accommodation. It is for this reason that it was incumbent on respondent/ assessing officer to consider the request for accommodation.' ' 10.The petitioner is, in my view, right in contending that he had no clue as to whether or not his request for adjournment had been considered. Therefore, quite naturally, as contended before me, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the dealer irrespective of whether the dealer has opted for personal hearing or not. 22. Learned Revenue Counsel again reiterated that these circulars are only directory in nature and not mandatory. 23. This Court is of the considered view that, in the light of facts and circumstances of the instant case, it may not be necessary to delve into those aspects as independent of aforementioned circular and the chronicle of dates as can be culled out from the impugned orders (to be noted, relevant paragraph which is adverbatim the same in all the five impugned orders has been extracted and reproduced supra), this is a fit case to grant another opportunity to the writ petitioner as impugned orders have been passed on the 3rd day after the lapse of further time of 10 days that was sought for by writ petitioner. Besides the facts and circumstances of case on hand, this Court has also borne in mind the position that the writ petitioner has sought for a fortnight's time first and immediately on expiry of fortnight's time, has sought for 10 more days, which means writ petitioner has sought for 25 days time in all. Further more, writ petitioner co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
