TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion the facts, which are undisputed and then take a decision and merely because there was a default committed by the petitioner, the Court cannot refuse to exercise the review jurisdiction especially when those undisputed facts will turn the dimension of the case. Review application allowed. - Rev.Appl. No.112 of 2019 And CMP.Nos. 17966 & 17969 of 2019 in W.A.No.652 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2020 - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Applicant : Mr.Adithiya Reddy for Mr. R. Ganesh Kanna For the Respondent : Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq Special Govt. Pleader JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. Heard Mr.Adithiya Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.R.Ganesh Kanna, learned counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the very same reply dated 14.06.2016 and therefore, there is no point in saying that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of personal hearing in pursuant to the second reply, especially when the petitioner failed to utilise the opportunity given through the notice dated 17.10.2018. Therefore, the learned Writ Court opined that there has been sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice. 4. Aggrieved by such order passed in the writ petitions, the petitioner preferred writ appeal in W.A.Nos. 652 to 656 of 2019. We heard the appeal and found that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the Statutory Appellate Authority. We were guided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot refuse to exercise the review jurisdiction especially when those undisputed facts will turn the dimension of the case. We are inclined to exercise of our review jurisdiction for the following reasons: (i) The revision notice for all the four Assessment Years were issued to the petitioner by the Assessing Officer on 18.01.2016. The petitioner submitted their reply after nearly 6 months i.e., on 14.06.2019. In fact, this delay in submitting their reply is what weighed in our mind when we dismissed the writ appeals by judgment dated 28.02.2019. It is seen from the records placed before this Court that after receipt of the revision notice dated 18.01.2016, the petitioner submitted a representation on 28.03.2016 and from the copy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e opportunity of personal hearing should be afforded after the Assessing Officer received their reply/objections of the dealer. The petitioner was of the opinion that he has 15 days time and therefore on 12.11.2018, the petitioner submitted their reply to the final notice dated 17.10.2018 and also sought for personal hearing. In the said reply, the petitioner had pointed out as to why there is a difference in the sales turnover reported in the monthly returns and the turnover as per the books of accounts. This has been explained by the petitioner by contending that the difference consists of purely labour charges. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a vital issue because substantial part of the dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2019 in W.A.Nos. 652 to 655 of 2019 calls for review. 6. Accordingly this Review Petition is allowed, the judgment in W.A.Nos. 652 to 655 of 2019 is recalled and the order in W.P.Nos. 33969, 33970, 33973, 33974 of 2018 is set aside with a direction to the petitioner to treat the Assessment Orders dated 13.11.2018 as a show cause notices and submit their comprehensive objection/s within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objection/s, the Assessing Officer shall fix a specific date for personal hearing, on which date, the authorised representative of the petitioner shall appear before the Assessing Officer and produce documents in support of their stand and on production of such documents and afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
