9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter, referred to as 'TNGST Act' and the challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the first respondent, viz., State Tax Officer (ST) dated 01.06.2023, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay tax and penalty at the rates mentioned in the impugned order and the consequential order passed by the second respondent dated 04.10.2023, whereby, the petitioner's bank account has been ordered to be attached by the third respondent. 3. Mr. Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the main ground, on which, the impugned order assailed is on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argument's sake that the petitioner has not accepted the show cause notice, the failure on the part of the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice would in no way would deprive the rights of the petitioner for being afforded with opportunity of personal hearing before passing final assessment order, especially, in circumstances, where, orders, which are prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner is passed. Further, the learned counsel drawn the attention of this Court to last para of the show cause notice dated 04.03.2023 and submitted that, though in the last para, the respondent-Department has called for reply/objections from the petitioner granting 30 days' time, however, in the very same para, particularly, in thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in first sentence of last para, the respondent-Department has called forth reply/objections from the petitioner within 30 days and in the very same para, particularly, in three lines above, the petitioner has been asked to appear for personal hearing on 17.03.2023, which itself is much prior to the date fixed for filing reply, which per se would show that the real intention of the respondent-Department is not to provide fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend their case, but, only to put the petitioner in peril. Had it been the real intention of the respondent-Department to provide an fair opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, then, the respondent- Department would obviously, granted sufficient time to the petitioner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
