TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T COMMISSIONER (CT) AVARAYAMPALAYAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, COIMBATORE [2018 (3) TMI 1617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that the opportunity of personal hearing cannot be denied, even if the objections not filed - In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has submitted his objections. But, the respondent, after receipt of the said objections, has passed the impugned orders, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing. The impugned orders, dated 23.03.2018, passed by the respondent are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.P(MD)Nos.22250 to 22254 of 2018 And W.M.P(MD)Nos.20179 to 20183 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2018 - Mrs. Justice J. Nish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd perused the records carefully. 5. Admittedly, notices were issued by the respondent, for which, objections were filed by the petitioner. The respondent, thereafter, ought to have fixed a date for personal hearing and communicated the same to the petitioner. A reading of the impugned orders reveal that no such exercise was done by the respondent. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, pursuant to the recommendations of the Hon'ble Justice Sri Ramanujam Committee, has laid down certain procedures to be followed by the assessing authority before passing final orders. That circular is binding on the respondent. It mandates that personal hearing shall be given even such an opportunity is asked or not. But, in contravention of the circul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner has submitted his objections. But, the respondent, after receipt of the said objections, has passed the impugned orders, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 8. It is seen from the record that the respondent, without any independent application of mind on the petitioner's objections, has simply confirmed the proposal, by the impugned orders dated 23.03.2018. In the decision in Narasus Roller Flour Mills Vs. C.T.O., Enforcement Wing, Sankagiri, reported in (2015) 81 VST 560 , a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows: 10.At the risk of repetition, this Court states that the Assessing Officer, under the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
