TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner's advocate. The case of the petitioner as per the affidavit is as under: The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and they are dealing in casuarina billets and eucalyptus billets. The respondent passed final orders of assessment under the Central Act, by order in CST. No. 723635/2001-02 and CST. No. 723635/2002-03 on April 25, 2003 and August, 24, 2004, respectively in which after scrutinising the entire document, it was declared by the respondent that the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax other than the tax paid and assessed by the final orders of assessment. However, all of a sudden pre-revision notices dated November 10, 2006, for both the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n place between the petitioner and the Orissa State buyer were submitted before the authorities. The petitioner sent letters on November 20, 2006 and December 5, 2006 to the respondent explaining the position. The stand of the petitioner was also confirmed by the Orissa State buyer dated December 2, 2006 and December 6, 2006. The respondent by a common notice dated March 22, 2007 required the petitioner to file the copies of the agreement with J.K. Paper Mills Limited, details regarding rate per metric tonne, copy of the sale invoices, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said notice to the petitioner. The same was furnished to the respondent during the first week of April 2007 by the petitioner. The petitioner also sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought for by the respondent during March 2007 have been furnished by the petitioner in the first week of April 2007, without considering the same, orders have been passed, demanding a huge amount of taxes from the petitioner. Moreover, the Orissa State buyer also, according to him, has furnished the details confirming the facts that the transport charges were not included in sales transaction between the petitioner and the State buyer and the Orissa State buyer also furnished those particulars to the respondent-department. Despite that, the respondent has passed orders, which is illegal. Moreover, learned Senior Counsel submits that according to the provisions of law, the respondent is expected to provide personal hearing and the same has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent-Department. A perusal of the impugned order dated March 26, 2008 would show that the respondent-Department has not adverted to the correct facts and referred to the documents furnished by the petitioner as well as the State buyer, J.K. Paper Mills Limited, Orissa, properly. Further, the subsequent request made by the petitioner for granting personal hearing to them and to their advocate were also not considered by the respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent, without considering these aspects, cannot stand the scrutiny of law and as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel the opportunity of personal hearing has not been given to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly I set as....