TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustice - as long as the respondent / Department continues to adopt this age old practice of giving acknowledgment in Letter Delivery Book, whatever the assessee produce as an endorsement before this Court, the Court will be inclined to accept the same as sufficient proof to show that reply was received in the Office of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the reply, dated 14.06.2017, having been received in the Office of the respondent, the respondent was duty bound to consider the same and should not have passed the impugned order, without even referring to the said reply. Opportunity of personal hearing - Held that: - Opportunity of personal hearing should be afforded, while fixing the date, after the receipt of the objections. This is so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bags and their goods are sold within the State of Tamil Nadu as well as Interstate. The petitioner also stock transfers the goods to their other branches. 3. The petitioner's case is that they have manufactured goods by purchasing raw materials through interstate sales against Form C declarations and stock transfer the deficiency goods, against all items, to their branches situated outside the state of Tamil Nadu and availed Input Tax Credit. The goods used in the manufacture are sold to the customers inside the state of Tamil Nadu as well as outside the State. The petitioner filed their returns for the assessment year 2014-15 and they were deemed to have been assessed under Section 22(2) of the Act, on 31.10.2015. Subsequently, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that of the revision notice dated 26.10.2016, except for the word revised having been added in the notice. The petitioner submitted their objections dated 14.06.2017 and a perusal of which shows that apart from the objections raised in their reply dated 15.12.2016, certain other aspects have also been dealt with by the petitioner. The petitioner has also relied on various decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The objections were served in the Office of the respondent, on 14.06.2017, as could be seen from the endorsement made in the Letter Delivery Book. Though this appears to be the factual position, the respondent did not consider the objections filed to the revised revision notice, but proposed to deal with the ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent, the respondent was duty bound to consider the same and should not have passed the impugned order, without even referring to the said reply. 8. One more aspect that need to be pointed out is with regard to the opportunity of personal hearing. In the revised revision notice, dated 29.05.2017, the respondent has stated that the dealers will be afforded opportunity of being personally heard within the time limit provided for submitting the objections. The manner in which the notice has been worded is incorrect. Opportunity of personal hearing should be afforded, while fixing the date, after the receipt of the objections. This is so, because, if the objections are to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, he need not hear the dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
