2022 (8) TMI 308

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 2.Challenging the assessment orders dated 31.12.2018 passed by the respondent relating to the assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17, the appellant / assessee preferred the writ petitions viz., W.P. Nos. 10819, 10824, 10825, 10826, 10829 and 10833 of 2019, contending that Hank Yarn is an exempted commodity falling under serial no.44 part B of the IV Schedule of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and hence, the appellant claimed exemption for the sale of hank yarn both under the TNVAT Act 2006 as well as under the CST Act. However, the respondent, based on the inspection of the Enforcement Wing Officials, rejected the claim of the appellant on the sales of hank yarn in respect of intersta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itions are disposed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." Aggrieved over the order of the learned Judge, the appellant / assessee is before this court with these intra-court appeals. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant / assessee, has passed the assessment orders dated 31.12.2018, relating to the assessment years in question, which are arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the same are liable to be set aside. When the same was put to challenge before the writ court, the learned Judge quashed the same, however, imposed a cond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Judge in setting aside the assessment orders passed by the respondent, on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, as it is an admitted fact that the appellant / assessee did not file their objections to the notices issued by the respondent and they were not provided any opportunity of personal hearing. 7.At the same time, the condition of deposit of 25% imposed on the appellant / assessee, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, is unwarranted, in the opinion of this court. In similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this court in Havea Handles & Components Pvt. Ltd v. the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Royapettah II Assessment Circle, Chennai, by judgment dated 04.07.2014 in WA Nos.867 to 86....