9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondent. 2. These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders of the respondent dated 27.02.2015 and to direct the respondent to consider the objections and grant personal hearing. 3.1 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, being a registered deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015, which were received on 06.03.2015, confirming the proposal on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any objections for the notices dated 26.12.2014. 3.3. That apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by issuing notices dated 26.12.2014, though objections were called for within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notices, however, there is no whisper about gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the documents were acknowledged by the respondent on 08.01.2015. The respondent, after receiving the replies, conveniently, ignored the same and passed the impugned orders by stating that the petitioner had not filed any replies, which is incorrect and contrary to records. 3.6 Relying upon the acknowledgement entries, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that no objections had been filed. Hence, it is crystal clear that the respondent without considering the detailed objections, passed the impugned orders. Hence, the same are liable to be quashed. 7. In view of the above and in view of the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), by quashing the impugned orders dated 27.02.2015, the matters are remitted back to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
