TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... van, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar For the Respondent : Mr. V. Haribabu Addl. Govt. Pleader ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to acknowledge the date of the receipt of the certified order copy dated 12.3.2015 as 27.08.2015 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to accept the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of trading of goods, display of advertisement, news, information, content, astrology, deals and offers etc., through e commerce, is a registered delaer under Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner and the business segment of Times of India, which is run by M/s.Benne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative of the petitioner appeared on the designated day, matter was adjourned to 2.2.2015 due to non availability of the concerned officer . Again on 2.2.2015, the authorised representative of the petitioner appeared before the respondent and explained about the documents already submitted. Thereafter, on 12.3.2015 the 2nd respondent passed an assessment order rejecting all the submissions and documents confirming the demand of ₹ 7,51,814/-. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that though as per the information received from the office of the 2nd respondent, the certified order copy was sent by registered post on 12.3.2015 to the petitioner's Chennai address, till date, the petitioner has not received any certified copy fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to acknowledge the fact that the actual receipt of the certified copy of the order is on 27.8.2015, consequently the date of receipt of certified copy of the order should be considered as 27.8.2015. But to the surprise of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent sent a notice dated 15.9.2015 stating that the assessment order was served upon the petitioner on 27.5.2015, since the RPAD sent on 20.3.2015 was not received by the petitioner. Since the petitioner, inspite of its best efforts, could not avail statutory remedy of appeal available under law, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registered post claimed to be sent by the 2nd respondent has never been received by the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
