9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate (Taxes) COMMON JUDGMENT R.MAHADEVAN, J. Assailing the common order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the learned Judge in the respective writ petition bearing Nos.12657, 15158, 14730, 12697, 15166, 15159, 12699 and 12760 of 2020, the appellants / TASMAC have come up with these intra-court appeals. 2.By the order impugned herein, the learned Judge, following the earlier order of this court in WP.(MD)No.10355 of 2020 dated 18.12.2020, allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein as against the orders of the concerned District Manager, TASMAC, imposing penalty, interest and GST for the remittance of the shortage value in stock. 3.It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the order dated 18.12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erfectly justified. However, the learned Judge erred in setting aside the same, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. With these submissions, the learned counsel sought to allow these appeals by quashing the order impugned herein. 4.Heard Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also perused the materials available on record. 5.At the outset, we are not inclined to go into the correctness of the order passed by the learned Judge, in respect of setting aside the orders impugned in the writ petitions and directing the appellants to proceed against the respondents in accordance with law and the procedure as contemplated in the Code of Prevention and Detection of Fraudulent Acts in Tamil Nadu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llegal. 33.Secondly, even assuming that Section 7(1A) of the Act r/w Rule 5(e) of the Rules will be applicable and the show cause notice was issued in accordance with the said provision, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, nowhere either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order or in the counter affidavit, the respondents never ever stated about the applicability of Section 7(1A) r/w Rule 5(e). It would be apposite to mention Section 7(1A), which reads as follows:- 'Agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act'. 34. By referring the above said Section, the respondents submitted that the petitioner refrained from performing to prevent the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents is illegal on the face of it and the same is liable to be set aside." 7.As stated by the learned counsel for the appellants, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Judge in WP(MD)No.10355 of 2020 dated 18.12.2020 was subsequently, challenged by the appellants / TASMAC by filing W.A.(MD) No.679 of 2021, and a Co-ordinate Bench of this court, by order dated 24.03.2021, granted an order of interim stay, insofar as the order relating to calculation of GST on the penalty alone. The operative portion of the same reads as under: "3.Considering the same, there shall be an order of interim stay insofar as the order of the learned Judge pertaining to the finding on the calculation of GST on the penalty alone is concerned. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
