TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken into consideration. That apart, there is nothing on record to show that notice for personal hearing was issued to the petitioner and in spite of an opportunity, the petitioner did not produce the documents. Hence, it is held that the impugned order dated 26.8.2016 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the respondent has not taken into consideration the material facts placed by the petitioner before the respondent. In the light of the above, the assessment has to be redone. Petition disposed off - matter on remand. - Writ Petition No. 37717 of 2016 & WMP. No. 32335 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 1-11-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Ravikumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, AGP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n dated 17.10.2015 informing the respondent that they have to receive some more C Forms from the parties for the year 2013-14 and requested time. This letter was acknowledged by the respondent on 29.10.2015, as could be seen from the signature affixed in the copy of the said letter. Thereafter, the petitioner, by reply dated 16.12.2015, enclosed the following documents : 1. Copy of pre-assessment notice (page 1) 2. Working Summery (Page 3) 3. High sea sale documents (pages 43) 4. Copy of returns related to without C-Form (Aug. Jan. 2013) 5. Original C Forms with annexure (144 Nos. C Form Value ₹ 2093209032 6. Debit notes with annexure (39 Nos. debit note value ₹ 5110105 7. Credit notes with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, after considering the documents produced by the petitioner, more particularly with regard to high sea sales, observed that copies of certain documents were not available. If that be the case, nothing prevented the respondent from calling upon the petitioner to produce those documents, failing which, the respondent could have drawn an adverse inference. Similarly, there is no discussion as to why the debit notes and credit notes produced by the petitioner along with their reply dated 16.12.2015, were not taken into consideration. That apart, there is nothing on record to show that notice for personal hearing was issued to the petitioner and in spite of an opportunity, the petitioner did not produce the documents. Hence, it is held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
