9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in these Writ Petitions is the order passed by the respondent in the proceedings in TIN.No.33100561230/2009-10 (in W.P.No.11847 of 2013) and TIN No.33100561230/2010-11 (in W.P.No.11848 of 2013), both dated 21.3.2013, seeking to quash the same. 4. The case of the petitioner in a nut-shell is as follows: (a) The petitioner-Tata Sky Ltd. is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent and had been filing Returns as required under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (for short, 'the TNVAT Act') regularly on self-assessment basis. The Returns filed by them for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 were accepted in terms of Section 22 of the TNVAT Act. (b) The petitioner was issued with pre-revision notices (for short, 'the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... request of the petitioner for extension of time to file their objections to the PRN. He further contended that without even communicating the petitioner for allowing or rejecting the time sought for by the petitioner to file objections to the PRN, the impugned orders are passed, which are legally infirmed, as they have been passed without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He also submitted that the alleged notices of the respondent, dated 15.3.2013, as seen from the reference column in the impugned orders, were not served on the petitioner and hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that in the absence of any stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e request, the respondent proceeded to recover the amounts as if there is no stay granted by the appellate authority in respect of the appeals preferred in respect of the orders made for the earlier assessment years. 9. On a perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that a reference has been made to the respondent's Office Notices, dated 6.3.2013 and 15.3.2013. There is also a reference in the impugned order that the petitioner has filed replies, dated 15.3.2013 seeking time to file their objections. When such a request has been made by the petitioner, the same has to be looked into by the respondent by taking appropriate decision. The objections are to be filed by the petitioner-dealer as required under the provisions of the TNVAT Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
