2018 (9) TMI 549

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, Chennai, reported in (2017) 99 VST 343 (Mad) and also its reply dated 22.03.2018. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act and also CST Act. The petitioner had declared total and taxable turnover of Rs. 10,79,68,693/- for the assessment year 2013-14. The 3rd respondent issued a notice on 04.01.2018 stating that based on the department website report on verification of annexure-II of the selling dealers concerned, it has been noticed that the petitioner has made undisclosed purchase of Rs. 94,37,556/- and therefore, proposed to levy tax and penalty over the same. On 22.03.2018 the petitioner submitted his reply along with the relevant documents and also declaration letters obt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from the record that on 04.01.2018, the third respondent had issued a notice proposing to levy additional tax and penalty for suppression of purchases to the value of Rs. 94,37,556/-, for which the petitioner has given his reply on 22.03.2018. In the meantime, on 15.03.2018, the third respondent has issued another notice directing the petitioner to file objections, if any and to avail an opportunity of personal hearing within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of notice. The notice, dated 15.03.2018, reads as follows: "Your attention is invited to the above. A notice were already issued to you on 04.01.2018, but you had not filed any objection till date, even though the notice was served to you and sufficient time was grante....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t be so, the third respondent ought to have given an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order. In similar circumstances, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court also in a decision reported in 33 VST 333 (Tvl.SRC Projects Private Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes), has categorically held that when request is made for a personal hearing, the Assessing Officer is bound to afford such an opportunity. Further, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that the dealer has submitted his reply, but has ignored to note the specific request for personal hearing. This error would vitiate the impugned order of assessment. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is....