2019 (3) TMI 507

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 case of the petitioner is that during inspection of his business premises, the second respondent demanded payment of tax and the petitioner immediately complied with the said demand by paying the tax as demanded by the second respondent. But thereafter, the second respondent has passed the impugned assessment order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,650/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Six hundred and Fifty only) as penalty, even though the petitioner has paid the tax immediately after the inspection was carried out in his business premises by the second respondent. Even though the receipt of the tax has been duly acknowledged in the impugned assessment order, the second respondent without any basis and without givi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ler within a period of fifteen days, it shall be examined and reply to be given to the dealer regarding granting of time or not as the case may be only if, there exists a genuine reason. ii) objections filed by the dealer on the pre assessment/revision notices shall be examined in each and every issue meticulously and speaking order shall be passed addressing the objections raised, in short, the speaking order which is complete shall be passed. iii) As the provision in the TNVAT Act stipulates the conditions or granting of personal hearing, it may be intimated in the notice and it shall invariably be afforded to the dealer irrespective of whether the dealer has opted for personal hearing or not. 5.The learned counsel fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner has also filed Form-I return before the second respondent, on 08.06.2015, wherein they have admitted the purchase of items as mentioned in the impugned demand. According to him, the petitioner is now stopped from saying that they have not been given sufficient opportunity. 8. As seen from the circular dated 03.02.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5, which is also not disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, it is clear that the petitioner ought to have been given personal hearing, whether he had opted for the same or not. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment dated 29.06.2017 in a Batch of writ petitions in the case of Tvl. Balaji Super Marke....