TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either within the time stipulated in the notices dated 22.06.2018 or after the expiry of time sought for by the petitioner by letter dated 19.07.2018 was granted - The only fault lies in the entire proceedings is that the respondent has not called the petitioner for a personal hearing before passing impugned Assessment Orders. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was also. This Court is incapable of deciding the case on merits merely based on the affidavit of the petitioner without any other documents. It is not possible for the Court to get into the disputed questions of fact - considering the fact that the petitioner is facing huge demand of tax and penalty, this case is remitted back to the respondent to reconsider the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, Chennai-6, (2017) 99 VST 343. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following decisions and a circular:- i. State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Golden Homes Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 102 VST 380 (Mad). ii. Farida Leather Company Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Periamet Assessment Circle, Chennai, (2020) 82 GSTR 452 (Mad). iii. State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Rathna Fan House Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 60 GSTR 373 (Mad). iv. Madras Granites (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Arisipalayam Circle, Salem and Another, (2006) 146 STC 642. v. Narasus Roller Flour Mills and Another Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, (Enforcement Wing), Sankagiri and Another, (2015) 81 VST 560 (Mad). vi. Circular No.3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that these Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to reply to the notices issued to the petitioner on 22.06.2018. It is further submitted that the time for 15 days was given to the petitioner to respond to these notices for the respective Assessment Years and the 15th day expired on 11.07.2018. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner sent a letter on 19.07.2018 and requested time for 30 days for filing reply. It is further submitted that the aforesaid request for 30 days time was made after the expiry of time for 15 days which was granted to the petitioner, but, the petitioner failed to file any reply to the notices issued on 22.06.2018 and therefore, the respondent was constrained to pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner for a personal hearing before passing impugned Assessment Orders. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was also 13. The arguments advanced on merits cannot be entertained in these Writ Petitions as those touch on the disputed questions of facts and therefore, this Court is incapable of deciding the case on merits merely based on the affidavit of the petitioner without any other documents. It is not possible for the Court to get into the disputed questions of fact. 14. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is facing huge demand of tax and penalty, this case is remitted back to the respondent to reconsider the issue subject to the petitioner depositing a 25% of the demand in the respective impugned Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
