TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utely there is no consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner dated 25.03.2017, apart from the fact that the order itself was passed without waiting till 27.03.2017, for the petitioner to react on the notice dated 27.03.2017, even assuming that the reply given by the petitioner dated 25.03.2017 has not reached the respondent before passing the impugned order - matter allowed by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.03.2017, followed by issuance of the goods detention notice on the same day. 3. The case of the petitioner is that they are an Unincorporated Joint Venture firm, for the purpose of executing specific project at Polavaram for construction of Polavaram Dam for the State of Andhra Pradesh and that they are having VAT registration in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is their further case, that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that when the petitioner has made a detailed objections on 25.03.2017 in pursuant to the goods detention notice dated 24.03.2017, there is no discussion whatsoever with regard to such objections raised by the petitioner in the impugned order passed by the respondent. Thus, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the petitioner, that there is no inter-state sales, as alleged in the impugned proceedings and on the other hand, the petitioner, who is executing his project at Andhra Pradesh, has simply transferred the goods from Chennai Cargo Complex to the place at Andhra Pradesh for their own use and therefore the contention of the respondent is not correct. Further the perusal of the goods detention notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the respondent before passing the impugned order. Therefore, considering all these aspects, this Court is of the view, that the matter has to go back to the respondent for re-considering the whole issue once again. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh order after hearing the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
