9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court made in batch of cases in W.P.No.105/2016 etc. dated 01.03.2017 3. The petitioner is challenging the order of assessment, mainly by contending that the Assessing Officer relied on the Web Report and passed the impugned order without furnishing all the details and conducting thorough enquiry with the dealers. It is further contended that the penalty under Section 22(4)of Tamil Nadu VAT act was imposed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. On these two grounds, the petitioner challenged the impugned order of assessment. There is no dispute to the fact that this Court, in the above said batch of cases, has dealt with the matter in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form to the respective Assessing Officers, who can decide for themselves as to whether there is a case made out to call upon their dealer to explain. If this centralized mechanism is not put in place exclusively for such purpose, it would result in notices and orders being issued by the respective Assessing Officers without even the knowledge of the Assessing Officer of the other end dealer resultantly no action being taken against other end dealer, assuming, he is at fault. Therefore, it is high time the Department wakes up and stops the one way approach and examine the matter in a holistic manner so that the defaulting dealer is brought to books. 57. Hence, for all the above reasons, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the notices/or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 4. Therefore, I find that the above decision made in the batch of cases is squarely applicable to the present case as well. Insofar as the contention raised by the petitioner that the assessee was not given personal hearing before imposing penalty under Section 22(4) of Tamil Nadu VAT Act is concerned, a perusal of the order of assessment does not indicate that the petitioner was given any opportunity of personal hearing before passing the same. 5. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the matter needs to be remitted back to the Assessing Authority for re-doing the exercise after following the procedures/directions stipulated in the order passed in W.P.No.105/2016 etc. dated 01.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
