9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in April 2013 and due to heavy loss, they have closed down the business in June 2013. At the time of commencement of the business, they have been registered under TNVAT Act, 2006 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. According to the petitioner, without any basis, he received the impugned demand from the second respondent, calling upon him to pay a huge amount of Rs. 35,20,218/- as value added tax and a sum of Rs. 52,83,270/- as penalty. According to the petitioner, returns were not filed with the second respondent, since the petitioner's business was closed down within two months from the date of commencement of business. According to the petitioner, arbitrarily, the second respondent has issued the impugned demand on the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing satisfied of the reasonable opportunity and adopting the following process. i) After issue of notice calling for the objections, if any further time is requested by the dealer within a period of fifteen days, it shall be examined and reply to be given to the dealer regarding granting of time or not as the case may be only if, there exists a genuine reason. ii) objections filed by the dealer on the pre assessment/revision notices shall be examined in each and every issue meticulously and speaking order shall be passed addressing the objections raised, in short, the speaking order which is complete shall be passed. iii) As the provision in the TNVAT Act stipulates the conditions or granting of personal hearing, it may be intimated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the petitioner before passing the impugned demand. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that after passing of the impugned assessment order, the petitioner has also filed Form-I return before the second respondent, on 08.06.2015, wherein they have admitted the purchase of items as mentioned in the impugned demand. According to him, the petitioner cannot now say that they have not been given sufficient opportunity. 8.As seen from the circular dated 03.02.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5, which is also not disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, it is clear that the petitioner ought to have been given personal hearing, whether he had opte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Chennai-5 as well as following the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to supra, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice by not affording sufficient opportunity including the right of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned demand. 11.In the result, the orders impugned dated 13.03.2015 and the notice dated 09.06.2015 are hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and the second respondent after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including the right of personal hearing, pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
