TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are assailed. The writ petitioner had previously filed writ petitions challenging the assessment process for violation of principles of natural justice. The said writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 05.05.2023 in W.P.No.14708 of 2023 and connected petitions by quashing the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the respondents for issuance of speaking orders after considering the reply of the petitioner to the respective show cause notices. The impugned orders were issued pursuant to such order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the orders impugned herein on three grounds. The first ground of challenge is that the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the sum specified in the respective show c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paragraph No.9 thereof. For the same proposition, he also relied upon the judgment of this Court in M/s.Visal Lubetech Corporation, Rep. by its Proprietor R.Parivallal, P.Karthikeyan v. The Additional Commissioner of Central Customs, Coimbatore, 2017 (2) TMI 1524. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in M/s.The Chennai Silks v. The Assistant Commercial (ST) (FAC), Tirupur South Assessment Circle, Tirupur, 2023(11) TMI 205 for the proposition that interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be warranted, if the impugned order was issued without considering the submissions and documents submitted by the assessee. 4. Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader (T), accepts notice on beh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t falls for consideration is whether the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. By virtue of the orders passed in the first round of litigation in this Court, the petitioner was permitted to reply to the respective show cause notice. On examining the orders impugned in these proceedings, it is also evident that personal hearings were provided to the petitioner on multiple days. It appears from the table at internal Page No.18 of the order impugned in W.P.No.1447 of 2024 that personal hearings were held on at least four days. 6. Turning to the grounds of challenge of the petitioner, the first ground of challenge relates to the discrepancy between the amount specified in the show c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ross examination. Based upon the inspection report received through the Intelligence Wing Erode, the respondent formed the opinion that ITC was unlawfully availed of by the petitioner, including by using its employees. The intimation and show cause notice were triggered by this development. In the impugned orders, references are made to statements by the employees of the petitioner and the statements of the petitioner through its Director. The principles of natural justice cannot be put into a straight jacket. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order issued in Thilagarathinam Match Works. The said order was in inquiry proceedings pursuant to a charge memo and cannot be compared to assessment proceedings. It should be ....