2013 (3) TMI 583

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etition under which the respondents asked the petitioner why permission for composition of tax should not be cancelled. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated March 12, 2013 by which, acting on the said notice dated March 8, 2013, the order of cancellation was passed. The petitioner has further challenged the orders at annexure E collectively under which the petitioner's bank accounts came to be attached by the respondents. Brief facts are as follows: The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of executing infrastructure related projects, principally of construction of roads. The petitioner is presently in the process of executing one such contract by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner in case the permission for composition of tax was cancelled. Such liability along with interest would come to Rs. 11.83 crores (rounded off) by way of duty and Rs. 2.37 crores (rounded off) by way of interest. On March 12, 2013, the petitioner applied to respondent No. 1 and prayed for time. It was pointed out that the time allowed was only for four days. The notice was received on March 9, 2013 in the afternoon and 10th March was a holiday being Mahashivaratri and also happened to be a Sunday. Books of accounts of the company were lying in Hyderabad. They, therefore, prayed for two weeks extension. In addition to such request for adjournment, the petitioner also raised certain legal contentions why permission for composition o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee cannot be considered in such a hasty manner. Under any circumstances, respondent No. 1 breached the principle of natural justice. Mere issuance of show cause notice is not sufficient for complying with the basic requirement of hearing. A reasonable opportunity to put forth its defence was part of the petitioner's right. No reason whatsoever has been brought to our notice why the entire exercise was required to be completed in four days. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated March 12, 2013 cancelling the permission for composition of tax is set aside. Since the orders of bank attachment were based on this order itself, the same, as a consequential step, are also quashed. We are conscious that under the VAT Act, t....