9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner accorded opportunity, and from the order in Annexure E, it is equally evident that the dealer filed a reply. The reply is considered by the Deputy Commissioner, resulting in order in Annexure E. What is under challenge before the Tribunal or what is the consideration is the order in Annexure E. Whether the exercise of suo motu revision by the Deputy Commissioner is correct and whether the order made thereon is sustainable? - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has given a finding that when fresh assessment proceedings are initiated, the appellant would get a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appellant would be at liberty to file all objections before the assessing authority and establish the appellant's case that the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 1996-97 29.09.2006 A5-5058/04(1) dt.12.01.2005 CA 268/2016 Dt.15.1.2016 M5-776(1)/SM/2016 dt.30.09.2016 TA 6/2017 dt.25.09.2019 8/2020 2 1997-98 29.09.2006 A5-5058/04(2) dt.12.01.2005 CA 269/2016 Dt.15.1.2016 M5-776(2)/SM/2016 dt.30.09.2016 TA 7/2017 dt.25.09.2019 9/2020 3 1998-99 29.09.2006 A5-5058/04(3) dt.12.01.2005 CA 270/2016 Dt.15.1.2016 M5-776(3)/SM/2016 dt.30.09.2016 TA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.1995 and give one more opportunity to the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 3.1 On 30.09.2016 the Deputy Commissioner, Mattancherry, upon reconsideration, passed the following order: ORDER NO: M5-776 (1)/SM/2016 DATED 30.09.2016 In exercise of the powers vested upon me as per section Sec 35 (2) (c) of the KGST Act 1963, the assessment for the year 1996-97 in respect of Sri. M.E. Azeez, Proprietor of M/s. Vanchinadu Industries, Rayamangalam finalized on 31 01-2001 is hereby set aside and remanded to the assessing authority for finalizing the assessment afresh after considering the crime file received from the Intelligence Officer, Squad No. II, Emakulam. The Tribunal confirmed the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ples of natural justice was canvassed and proved by the dealer, the Apex Court granted relief to the dealer, and afforded one more opportunity to the dealer before making an order under Section 35 of the Act. It is not the case of the dealer that the order in Annexure E was made without compliance with the directives of the Apex Court. Therefore, the extended limb of the argument on the deficiency of service of notice etc is not available to the dealer. Independent of the above argument, while inviting our attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal it is argued no ground is made out under Section 41 of the Act. 6. We take note of the rival contentions and perused the record. The question arising for our consideration is whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in this behalf. Paragraph no.23 of the common order of the Tribunal reads thus: 23. For the aforesaid reasons, we cannot accept the appellant's contention that the order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 of the Act is bad in law. It is an admitted fact that while completing the original assessments under Section 17(3) of the Act for all the three years, the penalty proceedings of the Intelligence Officer was not before the assessing officer. It is for this cogent reason that the Deputy Commissioner initiated suo-moto proceedings under Section 35 of the Act. As mentioned earlier, the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard while the Deputy Commissioner passed the order under Section 35 on 30/09/2016, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
