9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner was called to produce the books of accounts, he has not produced. But, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has produced the books of accounts more than once, but it was not verified by the respondent. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter needs consideration afresh. Petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P(MD) No.8214 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.6213 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2021 - HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU For Petitioner : Mr. K. Srinivasan For Respondent : Mrs. J. Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader ORDER This Writ Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing to re-determine the total and taxable turnover. Thereafter, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply, the respondent has passed the impugned assessment order dated 11.02.2021. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a physically challenged person and as he was suffering from illness, he could not file his reply within time. However, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner to explain his case. He would further state that even on merits also, the petitioner is having a very good case as the goods are exempted from levying tax under Section 30 of the TNVAT Act and therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Value Added Tax Act, 2006, provides for reasonable opportunity, which includes the personal hearing. Even if the petitioner has not replied or file any objection, it is the duty of the respondent to give the petitioner personal hearing by giving a notice to the petitioner fixing the date of hearing. Though the respondent has stated that the petitioner was called to produce the books of accounts, he has not produced. But, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has produced the books of accounts more than once, but it was not verified by the respondent. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
