TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts to take a decision on the merits of the case, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that it is a private limited company having its registered office at New Delhi and is carrying on its business of manufacturing of aluminium sections. It was registered under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for brevity, "the HGST Act") and thereafter under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the VAT Act") as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Under the industrial policy, various incentives were announced by the State of Haryana for setting up of industry in the State and the petitioner had set up a unit. In order to avail of the benefits, the petitioner applied for sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dated February 6, 2012 was sent to the petitioner and its counsel regarding fixation of date of hearing. Counsel showed his inability to attend the proceedings on February 22, 2012 as there was some function in the family of the counsel. The manager of the petitioner-company was sent along with an adjournment application of the counsel, who appeared before respondent No. 3-higher level screening committee and made a request for an adjournment on the ground of inability of the counsel to attend the proceedings. However, the request was not accepted and the appeal was dismissed after noting the manager's presence as clerk of the counsel. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been preferred on the ground that proper opportunity has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company was informed vide memo dated November 22, 2006 and the counsel of the petitioner-company was also informed telephonically on November 29, 2006, but nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner-company before the committee. A request for an adjournment was received from the company. The committee decided to give one more opportunity to the company and directed to put up the case in the next meeting of the committee, i.e., September 11, 2007. The company was informed about the next date of the meeting and the company's counsel was also informed on August 30, 2007. On the said date also, nobody appeared before the committee on behalf of the company. Last opportunity was given to the petitioner-company and the case was ordered to....