Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (2) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ually by sending notice through RPAD or any other mode of communication, which the petitioner could have easy access. Often the Officials attached to the respondent-Department not only in the present case, but also in umpteen numbers of case are continuously in the habit of merely uploading the Notice calling forth assessee's reply/Notice of Personal Hearing, automatically under the view 'Additional Notice Column'', which assessee's are failing to notice, (as the assessee's could not be expected to view the Online portal every now and then. Hence, this Court feels that the Officials attached to the respondent-Department could adopt the practice of sending Notice calling forth assessee's reply/Notice of Personal Hearing, by way o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mr. S. Ramamurthy for Mr. Saitanya Kesan For the Respondent : Mr. U. Baranidharan Additional Government Pleader ORDER Heard Mr.S.Ramamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the respondent and to quash the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, on receipt of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 notice dated 20.10.2023, issued by the respondent, which were followed by reminder Notices Nos. 1 and 2 d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e sales occurred outside the State by applying separate Registration number and clearly setting out such facts, the reply was filed, however, respondent has not taken into consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner in Form DRC-06. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and suffers from principles of violation of natural justice, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order and that apart, the reply filed by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the respondent while passing the impugned order. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that since the reply, that was uploaded by the petitioner was not visible clearly, the petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nfact, required to be produced by the petitioner manually, and without hearing the petitioner, the respondent proceeded to confirm the proposals contained in the show cause notice and passed the impugned order on 25.04.2024, stating as if, no reply was filed by the petitioner. 6.1 It is further seen that the impugned order has been passed with regard to two issues. The first issue pertains to the receipt of advance and the second issue relates to the sale transaction that took place outside the State. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioner that mere receipt of the advance will not ipso facto amount to supply and as regards the second issue, it is contended that the petitioner had already remitted th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd then. Hence, this Court feels that the Officials attached to the respondent-Department could adopt the practice of sending Notice calling forth assessee's reply/Notice of Personal Hearing, by way of RPAD and by doing so, the assessee's cannot take advantage of pleading ignorance of such notices and the precious time of the respondent- Department would not get wasted. 6.3 Further, in the present case, it is seen that by virtue of the Reminder Notice No.3, dated 22.04.2024, the petitioner was called upon to appear for the personal hearing within 24 hours (i.e. on 23.04.2024) and file reply manually within 48 hours (24.04.2024) and within another 24 hours, the impugned order came to be passed i.e. 25.04.2024. Had the real intention of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates