TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month time has expired only on 24.12.2014, but even before that time, the impugned orders have peen passed on 12.12.2014. Not only that, the order has been passed without giving a personal hearing. It is mandatory that personal hearing is to be granted under Section 22(4) of the 'Act' and that vital fact has not been taken into consideration. - Matter remnded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P.(MD)Nos.579 of 2015 to 581 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2015 - The Honourable Mr. Justice B. Rajendran,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. P. Rajkumar For the Respondent : Mr. A. Muthukaruppan ORDER Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, a common order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has filed a counter and as per the counter, an inspection was made on 18.03.2014 and it was found that a huge evasion of tax was found and therefore, notice was issued on 30.06.2014, which was received on 04.07.2014. On receipt of notice, the petitioner sent a reply on 09.07.2014, seeking for one month time, which was granted. Thereafter, again he made a request on 06.08.2014, which was also granted. Again, the petitioner sought for some details of documents on 25.08.2014. Though a reply was sent on 28.08.2014 that was sent returned with an endorsement as 'left', but the details, which was sought for by him were obtained by the Department on 11.11.2014 and was communicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther in the judgment of the Division Bench reported in (2011) 38 VST 45 (Mad), (cited supra) ( in which I was a party) it has been held that giving the documents as well as granting of personal hearing is not an empty formality. 7. Therefore, the present impugned orders, which have been passed on 12.12.2014, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing is not correct. The contention that if the petitioner has been given the personal hearing, he would have clearly explained the details regarding the information, which was taken from the web-site and the same are not the actual one. It is for the petitioner to prove that the bill whether it is given by him or not. But the only thing is that, at this juncture, this court can only say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
