2017 (3) TMI 1111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sment orders in respect of assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and also under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3.The main grievance of the petitioner in these writ petitions is that the respondent has passed the impugned orders of assessment without considering the material supplied by the petitioner along with their reply to the notice.  It is their further contention that had there been an opportunity of personal hearing, the petitioner would have satisfied the respondent by explaining in detail, with the supportive documentary evidences as to how the proposals are not correct. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he contended that when the petitioner has not opted to appear for personal hearing, they cannot contend before this Court, as though the principles of natural justice is violated. 7.Heard both sides. 8.The petitioner is aggrieved against the orders of assessment passed in pursuant to the pre-assessment notices and revised notices dated 03.03.2015 and 09.12.2016. Perusal of the said notices would show that the respondent has called upon the petitioner to file their objections within fifteen days of receipt of such notices, also by indicating that the petitioner is further afforded with an opportunity of being personally heard, if they desire, within the above allowed notice time. Though such notice was issued to the petitioner, the fact re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ive of whether the dealer has opted for personal hearing or not." 10.Going by the above Circular issued by the Department and considering the fact that the pre-assessment notices and revised notices suggested, as though the petitioner is entitled for a personal hearing, the question that is to be gone into and decided in this case is as to whether the petitioner was really afforded such opportunity. As I pointed out earlier, the respondent has not intimated the petitioner about the date of personal hearing in pursuant to the objections filed by them. When such being the factual position, the only conclusion that can be arrived is that the respondent though stated that an opportunity of personal hearing would be given to the petitioner, has....