TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tural justice. Mere issuance of show cause notice is not sufficient for complying with the basic requirement of hearing. A reasonable opportunity to put forth its defence was part of the petitioner's right. No reason whatsoever has been brought to our notice why the entire exercise was required to be completed in four days. Appeal allowed. Case remanded. - Special Civil Application No. 2995 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2013 - AKIL KURESHI AND SONIA GOKANI , JJ. For the Appellant : SN Soparkar, Senior Advocate with Akshay A Vakil For the Respondents : Ms Maithily Mehta, Additional Government Pleader, ORDER:- The order of the court was made by AKIL KURESHI J.- Leave to amend. Heard the learned counsel for the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cktrap and the same is converted into grit. The grit is then used in construction of roads and in particular in the execution of the contract in question. Between March 6, 2013 and March 8, 2013, the respondents conducted an inquiry at the petitioner's business premises. The respondents hold a belief that use of the grit by the petitioner from its own mines is not dutypaid and therefore, the petitioner has breached the conditions of permission for composition of tax. On such basis, the impugned notice dated March 8, 2013 came to be issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why such permission should not be cancelled. The petitioner was granted time up to 12th March to remain present with original records failing which ex parte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion that respondent No. 1 showed undue hurry in passing the final order of cancellation of permission for composition of tax. On March 8, 2013, showcause notice was issued which was served on the petitioner on March 9, 2013. 10th March happened to be Sunday. The petitioner, therefore, had only one clear day for responding to the notice and producing the material called for. There was no earthly reason why the said respondent could not have waited for a reasonable period to permit the petitioner to put the full facts on record. The question, whether in the background of the facts noted above, the petitioner can be stated to have breached the conditions of permission for such composition of tax is an important question. It required full exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner is in the process of executing road construction work valued approximately at ₹ 600 crores. In absence of any such facts permitting the respondent to attach the bank accounts even before taking a final decision on the cancellation of permission for composition of tax, at this stage, at least does not arise. In the result, the petition is disposed of with following further directions: (i) The petitioner would have time up to April 15, 2013 to file further reply and necessary details pursuant to notice dated March 8, 2013 (which we have not interfered with though prayed for by the petitioner). (ii) Respondent No. 1 shall thereafter take final decision in connection with the said notice after granting personal hearing to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
