9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is a violation of the principles of natural justice or when there is a challenge to the vires of the Statute. A perusal of the notices issued by the respondent as Ext.P2 and Ext.P5 reveals that the latter of the notices dated 05.01.2021 was for a different amount and therefore the petitioner ought to have replied to the specific allegations mentioned 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 - failure to consider Ext.P3 reply given by the petitioner, while issuing Ext.P11 order of assessment, does not vitiate the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT Act was served on the petitioner, alleging various irregularities. A reply notice was filed by the petitioner on 08.05.2018. The total escaped turnover proposed by the assessing officer as per notice dated 10.4.2018 was ₹ 6,95,10,864/-. Petitioner pleads that subsequent to the reply to the notice dated 10.04.2018, no communication was received thereafter and that they assumed the matter to have been closed. However, Ext.P5 notice dated 05.01.2021 was received by the petitioner for the same assessment year, issued under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, wherein, the total escaped turnover was proposed to be ₹ 29,32,47,628/-. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, petitioner responded by e-mail dated 25.01.2021, requesting an add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments were sought for. Learned counsel further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity is granted afresh. 5. Dr.Thushara James, learned Senior Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that repeated opportunities were granted to the petitioner and their failure to avail those opportunities resulted in the impugned assessment order. It was also argued that, in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be contended that there was violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the normal remedies provided in the statute ought to be pursued by the petitioner. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. 7. An assessment order issued under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act is impugned in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heeded to by the assessing officer. If the petitioner fails to respond even after four or five adjournments, the assessing officer is left without any remedy other than to issue the assessment order. 10. While considering the question whether the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of hearing, this Court bears in mind that, by Ext.P7, petitioner had sought only for two week's time. By Ext.P9 he had only sought for one more week s time and by Ext.P10 he sought for a further two weeks time. Thus practically every request for adjournment was granted with a specific rider that 'no further adjournment will be given . In spite of the above, further opportunities were granted to the petitioner, but he failed to avail the same. Adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
