TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 731
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent. 2. This review application has been filed to review the judgment and order in Writ appeals Nos. 652 to 655 of 2019 dated 28.02.2019. The said appeals were filed by the petitioner/assessee challenging the common order dated 20.12.2018 passed in W.P.Nos. 33969, 33970, 33973 and 33974 of 2018. Those writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the assessment orders under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (for brevity, 'the Act') for the Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2014- 2015 and 2015-2016. The prayer sought for in the writ petitions was to quash the Assessment Order as illegal and unconstitutional for having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.2016, they did not submit their reply within the time stipulated i.e., 15 days, but submitted the reply only on 14.06.2016 and even thereafter, several opportunities were given and a personal hearing was fixed on 29.10.2018, the notice of such personal hearing having been received by the petitioner on 25.10.2018. Thus, we concurred with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and confirmed the order passed in W.P.Nos. 33969, 33970, 33973, 33974 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018. The petitioner is before us by way of this review application seeking review of our judgment dated 28.02.2019. 5. After elaborately hearing the leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader, we find that on account of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 29.03.2016. In the said communication, the petitioner sought for 15 days time to produce the documents and other related records. Subsequently, by another representation dated 20.05.2016, the petitioner stated that the Director is not in Station and required atleast one month time to produce documents and other related records. The Assessing Officer has acknowledged the said letter on 20.05.2016 and extended the time to submit their reply up to 15.06.2016. On 14.06.2016, the petitioner has submitted their reply. Thus, this fact would go to show that the Department has extended the time up to 1 month and well within the said time, the petitioner has submitted their reply. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be faulted and stated to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner requested for an opportunity of personal hearing in their reply dated 12.11.2018. However, the Assessing Officer on 13.11.2018 has passed the Assessment Order. (ii) On a cursory perusal of the Assessment Order, it appears to be a well reasoned order because the order is a 17 pages order, however, on a closure scrutiny, we find upto page 15, the impugned Assessment Order is verbatim reproduction of the original notice dated 18.01.2016, the reply of the petitioner dated 14.06.2016 and final notice dated 17.10.2018 and remarks of the Inspecting Officer. Further, there is a passing reference to the petitioner's objection dated 12.11.2018 and the same is brushed aside stating that it is a reproduction of the ....