9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner arises from the impugned order having allegedly been rendered, without any hearing. Petitioner contended that the impugned order is issued without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, since, an effective opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner apart from failing to consider the reply filed initially to a notice under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. 2. Petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of various IT related services. For the assessment year 2016-17, it had filed its annual return on 31.05.2017. Thereafter, a notice dated 10.04.2018 issued under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act was served on the petitioner, alleging various irregularities. A reply notice was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ext.P10, there is a communication issued by the respondent on 26.02.2021 adjourning the case to 01.03.2021. 4. Sri.A.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is subjected to great prejudice since sufficient opportunity was not granted. It was also argued that the entire affairs of the petitioner, especially those relating to the taxation matters were being handled by the corporate office of the petitioner at Uttar Pradesh and due to the surge in Covid cases, there were difficulties for the petitioner to collate the data for replying to the notices issued by the respondent, which was the reason why the adjournments were sought for. Learned counsel further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned in the said notice dated 05.01.2021. Failure to consider the reply dated 08.05.2018, is, therefore, not material, since the officer had, subsequent to the original notice, issued a fresh notice within the period of limitation raising a different set of allegations. Thus, I find that failure to consider Ext.P3 reply given by the petitioner, while issuing Ext.P11 order of assessment, does not vitiate the assessment order. 9. A perusal of Ext.P7, P8, P9 and P10 communications will reveal that petitioner was granted several opportunities to object to the notice dated 05.01.2021 and that every request for adjournment was heeded to by the assessing officer. If the petitioner fails to respond even after four or five adjournments, the assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
