TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner. 2. The petitioner is a Civil Contractor and an assessee on the file of the respondent. In respect of the assessment year 2009-2010, the petitioner was originally assessed by accepting their return under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act by the proceeding of the respondent dated 28.11.2011. As per the said order, the petitioner was entitled for refund of Rs. 6,03,593/-. However, thereafter, the petitioner was reassessed by the respondent vide his proceeding dated 03.04.2012 determining total and taxable turn over of Rs. 2,54,43,875/- and Rs. 46,36,963/- respectively. As per the said revised order, the petitioner was entitled to the refund of Rs. 4,16,770/-. Since the petitioner was entitled for refund, the petitioner had approached the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner has come out with the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the assessment has already been made, as stated supra and after completing the assessment, total refundable amount was also determined. Instead of paying the refundable amount, once again, the respondent issued a second notice for revision and even in respect of the said second revision notice, detailed objections were filed, where, it was also requested on the part of the petitioner to give a personal hearing, the respondent, instead of giving any personal hearing and opportunity to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n given in the impugned order itself. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said impugned order and even in the impugned order, the commercial tax paid by the petitioner was directed to be refunded to the extent of Rs. 77,990/- and therefore, the impugned order is a reasoned order. Hence, no interference is required. 8. This Court have considered the rival submissions made by the learned respective counsel. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner's assessment was originally accepted and an order to that effect was passed for refund of the amount to the extent of Rs. 6,03,593/-. Thereafter the first show cause notice for revision was issued, even according to which, the amount refundable to the petitioner was quantified as Rs. 4,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said proposition reads thus: "We also hold, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order by way of revision of assessment should not have been passed without giving the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing. But since the same has been denied, the impugned order is hereby quashed." 12. In view of the said pronouncement of this Court, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the respondent should have given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the revision of assessment order and in absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order impugned is not a sustainable one and hence the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the r....