9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders for a sum of ₹ 70,720-00 and ₹ 2,84,642-00 for the respective Assessment Year - As far as the imposition of penalty which appears to be 200% of the amount confirmed in the impugned order is concerned the petitioner appears to have made out a case for interference. Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner's representation dated 29.08.2013 has not been considered by the respondent, while passing the order under Section 27(4) as it stood during the material period though did not specifically contemplate the benefit of personal hearing and also considering the fact that the order has been passed long after the notices were issued in view of the pendency of the writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin the period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had also sent a reply dated 29.08.2013 which was duly acknowledged by the respondent on 12.09.2013. 4. It is submitted that the impugned order has now been passed by the respondent after a lapse of 1 years and without the following principles of natural justice. He therefore submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 5. Opposing the prayer, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent submits that the issue is squarely covered against the petitioner in terms of the above decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself and therefore there is no merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent, while passing the order under Section 27(4) as it stood during the material period though did not specifically contemplate the benefit of personal hearing and also considering the fact that the order has been passed long after the notices were issued in view of the pendency of the writ petition and after the reply was filed by the petitioner vide reply dated 29.08.2013 which duly acknowledged by the respondent on 12.09.2013, I am inclined to interfere by remitting the case back to the respondent to pass a speaking order within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to make additional representation if any. 11. In the result, these writ petitions stand par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
