TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the total amount emphasized by learned counsel for the Revenue, since the petitioner has not been able to put-forth its case of complete waiver and even otherwise also, this order requires interference on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing as also for violation of principles of natural justice - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 326 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2012 - Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani, JJ. Shri Paresh M. Dave, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Gaurang H. Bhatt, Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER Rule. Learned Mr. Gaurang H. Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion before the Tribunal. On the ground of urgency a request was made for an early hearing of the matter and such a request of early hearing was granted by the Tribunal vide its order dated 14-11-2011 whereby it directed the listing of the main matter along with the stay application for hearing on 30-11-2011. It is the say of the petitioner that since the close relatives of petitioner No. 2 suffered a severe heart attack, he had to rush to his native place. On account of certain complicated facts, his presence being inevitable, adjournment was sought on that day and such request of adjournment was rejected by the Tribunal, which passed the order on merits directing the pre-deposit of sum of ₹ 1 crore in addition to the amount already d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further relief that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted. 7. On 13-1-2012, this Court had issued notice to the other side, in response to which learned Counsel Mr. Gaurang Bhatt appeared for the Revenue. 8. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Paresh Dave for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Bhatt for the Department and on having duly considered rival submissions of the parties, this petition is being allowed for the following reasons :- 8.1 On examination of the record, it appears clearly that at the request of the present petitioner, the Tribunal had fixed the date of hearing of stay application along with the main matter on dated 30-11-2011 and on the stipulated date, on ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given to the petitioner-company. It is true that it was petitioner who had prayed for early hearing of the stay application and, therefore, there was a specific date which had been earmarked by the Tribunal and on the stipulated date the matter came up for the hearing as scheduled. However, due to the unavoidable reasons, which have been specifically mentioned in the adjournment application when a request was made by a fax message, opportunity of hearing could not have been denied to the petitioner by terming the ground of adjournment as flimsy. There is nothing to indicate that petitioner was either indulging into dilatory tactic or was on to forum shopping. Request for early hearing cannot bar the petitioner to request for adjournment on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
