1994 (12) TMI 305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e petitioner is a dealer registered under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. It carries on the business of sale and purchase of grains, oil-seeds, pulses, kirana and bardana as also tax-free commodity like garlic. The petitioner submitted the returns within the time and paid the required tax on the basis of the returns in compliance with the provisions of the Act. The respondents assessed the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd both the sides. 5.. The limited contention made before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 (State of M.P.) erred in rejecting the representation by order (annexure P11) without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned counsel has placed reliance on [1984] 56 STC 107 (MP) (Ramchandra Jagannath & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh) in su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It is thus clear that no order adverse to the party, should normally be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to that party. 9.. Applying the aforesaid principles of law I am satisfied that the order annexure P11 cannot be sustained in law. 10.. In the circumstances, I dispose of this petition with directions as under: (a) The order dated February 22, 1986 (annexure ....