9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also not in dispute that the reply that was preferred by the petitioner to the assessment proposals were received by the 1st respondent on 10.12.2018. Inasmuch as the fact of receipt of the reply to the pre-assessment notice on 10.12.2018 would clearly indicate that there was no attempt by the petitioner to protract proceedings, the 1st respondent ought not to have acted in such haste in a ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 1st respondent. In the writ petition, he is aggrieved by Ext.P3 assessment order that was passed ex-parte and Ext.P5 order passed in a rectification application where the point raised by the petitioner was that the assessment order has been passed ex-parte and without taking note of vital contentions of the petitioner on the merits of the case. It is pointed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that it is not in dispute that Ext.P3 assessment order was one that was passed exparte. It is also not in dispute that the reply that was preferred by the petitioner to the assessment proposals were received by the 1st respondent on 10.12.2018. Three days prior to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, after hearing the petitioner. As a consequence, I also set aside Ext.P5 order that was passed in proceedings under Section 66 of the KVAT Act. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed by quashing Ext.P3 and P5 orders and directing the 1st respondent to complete the assessment proceedings against the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-2015 afresh, after affording the petitioner an opportun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
