9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State in the nature of lockdown on account of COVID-19 pandemic it is unreasonable on the part of the 1st respondent to inform the petitioner to file a response to the show-cause notice dt.16.03.2019 served on 20.3.2020, within the period of seven (07) days. The 1st respondent ought not to have denied the petitioner reasonable time to file objections to the show-cause notice and also a personal hearing since the same was specifically sought by the petitioner in the e-mail dt.24.03.2020. The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within three (03) months - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Writ Petition No.7957 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2020 - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed by the said Governments, both its Head Office in Mumbai and local office in Telangana were closed and requested the 1st respondent to grant further time till the lockdown is lifted and also sought for an opportunity of personal hearing. 6. Without referring to the e-mail sent by the petitioner and without waiting for the lifting of lockdown and denying an opportunity of personal hearing sought by the petitioner, the 1st respondent passed the impugned Assessment Order No.51310 dt.30.03.2020 confirming the tax proposed in the show-cause notice on the ground that petitioner did not file reply and also did not seek any adjournment. 7. The petitioner sent e-mails dt.31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 protesting that the passing of the said A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STC 133 (A.P.), Kirby Building Systems India Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner (C.T.) (2012) 54 APSTJ 44 (A.P.), S. Lalaiah Co. vs. The Dy. Commissioner (C.T.) (2007) 45 APSTJ 136 (A.P.) and Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College vs. Union of India (2013) 10 SCALE 608 (S.C.). 12. The counsel for petitioner reiterated the above contentions and sought for setting aside of the impugned order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 13. Sri J. Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondents, does not dispute that in the Rectification Order dt.07.04.2020, the 1st respondent admitted that he had received the adjournment e-mail letter dt.24.03.2020 sent by the petitioners seeking a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
