2016 (2) TMI 842

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The writ petitions in W.P.No.39378 of 2015, W.P.No.39379 of 2015, W.P.No.39380 of 2015, W.P.No.39381 of 2015, W.P.No.39382 of 2015, W.P.No.39383 of 2015, W.P.No.39384 of 2015 and W.P.No.39385 of 2015, had been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue writs of Certiorari to call for and to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.10.2015. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner company is a public limited company engaged in the business of development and sale of land. It is registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. While so, it had incurred certain expenses for the leveling of the land, laying of roads and for the crea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issued by the first respondent are arbitrary, illegal and void, as no opportunity of personal hearing had been given to the petitioner before such proceedings had been issued. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had pointed out that the petitioner had sent a letter, dated 19.9.2015, to the first respondent requesting that extension of time may be granted, till 5.10.2015, for filing its reply and had also made a request to allow the representative of the petitioner to appear in person to present its case, appropriately, on a convenient date, thereafter. However, the first respondent had proceeded to pass the impugned proceedings without considering the request made by the petitioner. As such, the first respondent had passed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioner had requested for extension of time, till 5.10.2015, for filing its objections and for fixing a date for personal hearing, by way of a letter, dated 19.9.2015. However, the first respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, dated 30.10.2015, granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and without granting extension of time, as prayed for by the petitioner in the letter, dated 19.9.2015. 10. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.10.2015, and to remit the matters back to the first respondent, for passing fresh orders, ....