TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder to proceed with regard to the composition fee, the Adjudication Authority i.e., the Revenue issued the second adjudication notice dated 19.07.2015. Having receipt of the same, the petitioner replied for the same by reply letter dated 29.08.2015 and the same was received by the respondent. This Court has no hesitation to hold that, the reply given by the petitioner has not been considered in proper perspective, without which, since the order was passed confirming the proposal already made with regard to the composition fee by the order impugned and the copy of the same also since has not been served, as claimed by the petitioner, the said order in the legal scrutiny may not stand and therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way of revision as provided under the Act. The amount demanded under composition fee shall not be made as a pre-condition for release of the goods. 3. In pursuance of the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner paid the disputed tax, against which, the vehicle in question belongs to the petitioner had been released. 4. Subsequently, a second adjudication notice was issued by the Revenue on 19.07.2015, where, they seek show cause from the petitioner within seven days. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner had sent a reply on 29.08.2015 which had been served on the Revenue on 07.09.2015, for which, the postal acknowledgment also received by the petitioner from the respondent has been produced. 5. Therefore, the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 04.09.2015, nothing has been stated about the reply given by the petitioner to the second notice for adjudication and therefore, on that ground, since it is violation of principles of natural justice, the order impugned shall not stand, hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court. 9. Per contra, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that, notice had been given on 19.07.2015, for which, reply had been given by the petitioner on 29.08.2015, the same, having been considered only, the present order i.e., order dated 04.09.2015 was passed and after six years, the petitioner now has chosen to file this writ petition challenging the said order. 10. In this context, the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue issued the second adjudication notice dated 19.07.2015. Having receipt of the same, the petitioner replied for the same by reply letter dated 29.08.2015 and the same was received by the respondent. 14. However, what is the content of the reply given by the petitioner in his reply has not been considered as nothing has been stated about the same in the order impugned except to have a reference of the notice to the petitioner dated 19.07.2015. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that, the reply given by the petitioner has not been considered in proper perspective, without which, since the order was passed confirming the proposal already made with regard to the composition fee by the order impugned and the copy of the same al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
