TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the issuance of evasion of tax. But, specific proposals have not been served on the petitioner before confirming the additional proposals. The second respondent is directed to issue fresh notice incorporating all the proposals along with materials relied on by him and call for objections from the petitioner - appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.P(MD)Nos.20275 & 20276 of 2014 M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 23-4-2018 - M. Govindaraj, J. FOR PETITIONER : MR.B.ROOBAN FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.S.DHAYALAN GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE ORDER These writ petitions have been filed, seeking to quash the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in TIN. 33195241479/2007-08 dated 26.11.2014 and TIN. 33195241479/2009-2010 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. Since the petitioner failed to appear before the authorities, the materials could not be served on him. Therefore, the additional proposals were also confirmed along with the other proposals sent to him, by pre-revision notice, dated 19.08.2014. On examination of the returns and the data available on the web-site, the respondents unearthed large scale evasion of tax. It is not a secret and that the dealer was not aware or taken by surprise of the entire details. The records with regard to the additional proposals were well within his knowledge. Therefore, the order confirming the additional proposals would not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. On such submission, he prays for dismissal of these writ petitions. 4. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings and in Paragraph No.4 http://www.judis.nic.in , it was observed as under: Having admitted the mistake, the respondent could not have proceeded further, without making proper proposal, he proposed to proceed with the assessment on totally different lines. This mistake committed by the respondent goes to the root of the matter, affecting the very orders of assessment. This is sufficient to hold that the impugned orders are bad in law, as they have exceeded the proposal in the revision notices, dated November 14, 2016, and without due application of mind. 7. In view of the judgment, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent in TIN.33195241479/2007-2008 dated 26.11.2014 and TIN.33195241479/2009-2010 dated 03.12.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
