2024 (1) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an Ramasamy For the Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar For the Respondent : Ms.Amirta Dinakaran Government Advocate, for R1, Ms.Hasmukh S.Surana, for R2 ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent on 13.10.2021. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in the business of supplying bone meal and they had not at all impor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1st respondent had wrongly understood as if the petitioner had imported timber and other products and demanded the tax amount by virtue of the prior notice. Further, the 1st respondent had passed the aforesaid impugned order without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Hence, he would submit that the said impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mation is said to have been obtained by the 1st respondent from the Customs Department. Further, according to the 1st respondent, the petitioner had received the show cause notice and they had not filed any reply for the said notice. 7. This Court is of the view that even assuming that the petitioner had received the notices and not filed any reply, the 1st respondent is supposed to have provid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Further, in the present case, the petitioner had passed the impugned order under the misconception that the petitioner had imported timber, which is totally contrary to the business of the petitioner. Hence, for the interest of justice, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.10.2021 is set aside. The attachment notice dated 02.08.2022, which....