2015 (4) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Respondent : Mr. A. Muthukaruppan ORDER Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, a common order is passed. 2. These Writ Petitions have been filed mainly on one ground that the petitioner has not been given a personal hearing inspite of the fact that he has specifically pleaded for personal hearing, which is mandatory, under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the time granted was one month time and the time was sought for only on 25.11.2014, if one month time is granted, the impugned order should not have been passed much earlier I.e., on 12.12.2014, which is premature. The learned counsel, therefore would submit that the impugned orders are not in accordance with law and violates in principles of natural justice and therefore, the same are liable t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner on 19.11.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner sought further time on 25.11.2014 and the time, as requested by the petitioner, was granted. In the meanwhile, taking into consideration the reply, the respondent has passed the final orders and according to them, the petitioner is evading to pay the tax and without filing an appeal or paying 25% tax, have come forward with these writ petitions. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me, the impugned orders have peen passed on 12.12.2014. Not only that, the order has been passed without giving a personal hearing. It is mandatory that personal hearing is to be granted under Section 22(4) of the 'Act' and that vital fact has not been taken into consideration. Further in the judgment of the Division Bench reported in (2011) 38 VST 45 (Mad), (cited supra) ( in which I was ....