2021 (9) TMI 1002

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessment year 2009-10 passed by the respondent no.2 under section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956 read with section 39(1) and 36 of the KVAT Act 2003 dated 29.03.2016 bearing No. DCCT (Audit)-2.2/DVO-2/2015-16 vide ANNEXURE-A and the Endorsement dated 12.04.2021 (Sl.No. Commercial Tax Deputy Commissioner (Audit)-2.2/30/2021) vide ANNEXURE-B. ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondent No.2 to extend the input tax benefit to the petitioner as per the returns filed by him before the Authorities of the Respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2009-10 and further direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the "H" form submitted by the petitioner for exemption of turnover tax on the expor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....herefore submitted that even as per the impugned order no notice of the proceedings had been served upon the petitioner nor was he heard before passing impugned order and consequently, impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and same deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since he was neither aware about the aforesaid proceedings nor passing of the impugned order at Annexure-A, the petitioner did not take any further steps in this regard till he received a communication from the judicial Magistrate on 8.1.2020 regarding criminal Misc.No.104/2017 initiated by respondent No.2 by way of recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned order. Immediately thereafter, petitioner appr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which is violative of principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. 8. In so far as the contention urged on behalf of the respondents with regard to the delay and latches and availability of alternative remedy is concerned, having regard to my finding above that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice coupled with the fact that, the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings till he received communication from the Magistrate in the recovery proceedings initiated against him, the said contentions urged on behalf of the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the petition cannot be accepted. 9. Under these circumstances on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice alone, I a....