TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow prejudice has been caused to him by the impugned orders - the impugned order is set aside in terms of aforesaid order dated 30.10.2014 in W.P(MD).Nos.28374 to 28377 of 2014 passed by this Court and proceedings are re-opened for fresh adjudication - petition disposed off. - W.P.(MD)No.19980 of 2017 And W.M.P.(MD).No.16258 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - MR. P. D. AUDIKESAVALU, J. For The Petitioner : Mr.B.Rooban For The Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan ORDER Heard Mr.B.Rooban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2.In the earlier round of litigation on the subject matter, this Court by order dated 27.10.2015 in W.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.08.2017, made a request for adjourning the matter, but did not submit any of the documents that were required by the second respondent. This had resulted in the second respondent passing final orders dated 16.08.2017, reaffirming the earlier order passed on 10.06.2015, which was set aside by this Court by order dated 27.10.2015 in W.P(MD).Nos.19302 and 19303 of 2015. 5. The petitioner now challenges the order dated 16.08.2017, passed by the second respondent, on the ground that there was no communication from the second respondent, in respect of his request for adjournment made vide letter dated 10.08.2017 and resultantly, the petitioner was not in a position to have a reasonable opportunity to make his submissions in the matter in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gful opportunity and it is not for the sake of mere satisfying or compliance of the statutory requirement. That apart, when the petitioner made a request for grant of 30 days' time, if the authority was not inclined to accept the request, then a separate order ought to have been passed prior to finalizing the assessment. Even in such a case, the Assessee should have been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. Since all these above procedural illegalities have crept in, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Having regard to the fact that the second respondent had not sent any communication to the petitioner with regard to his request for adjournment made vide letter dated 10.08.2017, in light of the aforesaid decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
