9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal hearing afforded by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order stating that the impugned order is either a non-speaking order or was passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice. Further, what is evident is that the petitioner has scuttled the proceedings by filing frivolous writ petitions twice and this is the third attempt. The petitioner is given liberty to workout the remedy before the Appellate Commissioner by filing an appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off. - W.P.Nos.24805, 24807, 24809 & 24810 of 2021 And W.M.P.Nos.26089, 26091, 26093 & 26094 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 03.09.2014 in W.P.No.23785 of 2014 has not been complied for more than three years which implied that the respondent had no valid reasons to call the petitioner and it is for the respondent to close the subject matter. However, facts on record indicates that a notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.11.2017 and an opportunity of hearing was fixed on 29.11.2017. On 28.11.2017, the petitioner sent a reply stating that the petitioner has not received the notice. Thereafter, another notice was issued by the respondent on 18.12.2017, to which the petitioner replied by a letter dated 25.12.2017 which reads as under:- 1. The Honourable High Court of Madras had set aside your impugned orders and asked you to furnish the report to me within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. That apart, it is submitted that the report called for and directed to be furnished to the petitioner in terms of an order dated 03.09.2014 in W.P.No.23785 of 2014 was not the basis of the impugned order. It is further submitted that the respondent has also not participated effectively in the proceedings and instead merely wanted the respondent to conclude/close the issue. 9. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report directed to be furnished vide order dated 03.09.2014 in W.P.No.23785 of 2014 was furnished after the impugned order was passed and therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed and accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed. 16. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty to workout the remedy before the Appellate Commissioner by filing an appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner after duly complying with the other provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006 as far as pre-deposit of tax is concerned, the Appellate Commissioner shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. These Writ Petitions stand disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Misc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
