9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel on both sides, main writ petitions are taken up, heard out and are being disposed of. 3. Considering the narrow compass on which the instant writ petitions now turn, short facts shorn of elaboration and micro details / particulars will suffice. 4. This Court is informed without any disputation or disagreement that subject matter of all these five writ petitions arise under 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)' [hereinafter 'TNVAT Act' for brevity]. This Court is also informed without any disputation or disagreement that all these five writ petitions arise out of a common factual matrix and only the Assessment Years are different. To be noted, the five Assessment Years, which const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same have been passed, but this Court is informed at the hearing that the impugned orders were passed under Section 27(1)(a) of TNVAT Act. 7. Before this Court proceeds further, it is necessary to notice the proviso, which operates with regard to proceedings under Section 27(1)(a) of TNVAT Act. This Court had already taken a view that with regard to the proviso to Section 27(1)(a), reasonable opportunity to show cause against such orders will suffice and it is not statutorily imperative to hold personal hearing unlike proviso to Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act. This is a case where the 1st respondent Assessing officer, in his discretion, has thought it fit to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner dealer. In this rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent in passing the impugned orders. If the revisional notice dated 20.09.2018 has been taken into account as one of the determinants for making the impugned orders, it follows as a sequitur that it is imperative that the 1st respondent Assessing officer should have also considered the writ petitioner dealer's reply / objections to the same, as alluded to supra. The reply / objections to the same dated 19.10.2018 was received in the office of the 1st respondent only on 26.10.2018. Therefore, it emerges clearly and puts it beyond any pale of doubt that the personal hearing was held before receipt of the reply to the revisional notice. 10. Responding to the aforesaid scenario, which unfurled in the hearings on 27.08.2019 and 29.08. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IN/33051664293/2012-13 and No.TIN/33051664293/2011-12, all dated 31.05.2019 are set aside. It is made clear that the impugned orders are set aside on the sole point that personal hearing was held prior to receipt of writ petitioner dealer's response to the revisional notice dated 20.09.2018 referred to in the impugned orders and not on any other grounds. In other words, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion or view on the merits of the matter. b) By consent of both sides, personal hearing is now fixed on 12.09.2019 (Thursday) at 11.00 a.m (Forenoon) and the venue shall be the office of the 1st respondent. c) The writ petitioner dealer shall avail of the opportunity and shall make submissions by perambulating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
