TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tations in this regard, order has to be passed. Principles of natural justice - Held that:- It is crystal clear that the representation of the petitioner dated 14.09.2009 was not at all considered by the respondent, before passing the impugned demand notice dated 12.01.2010 - the impugned demand notice cannot be sustained, since it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.(MD)No.1602 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2018 - MRS. J. NISHA BANU J. For Petitioner: Mr. S. Karunakar For Respondent: Mr. D. Muruganantham, Additional Government Pleader ORDER This writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x was brought to their knowledge by way of Audit Party objections and thereafter, the respondent has issued the demand notice under Section 9(2)B of the CST Act, 1956, read with Section 24(3) of the repealed TNGST Act, 1959, for the belated payment of ₹ 2,50,000/-. He would further submit that the representation of the petitioner has already been considered by the Assessing Officer while issuing the original assessment order dated 28.09.2007 and for the belated payment of tax, interest was levied. 5. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record. 6. As has been rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Assessing Officer could not reopen the assessment based on the opin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evi [1983] 144 ITR 345. 7. The Assessing Officer has to independently record his view for such reopening, if he proposes to reopen and thereafter, notice has to be issued to the parties regarding such reopening and after considering their objections/representations in this regard, order has to be passed. In the counter affidavit, it is averred by the respondent that the contentions of the petitioner have already been considered in the original assessment order dated 28.09.2007 itself. It is necessary to reiterate that the petitioner has made his objections by way of representation on 14.09.2009, ie., after receipt of the notice dated 02.09.2009. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the representation of the petitioner dated 14.09.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
