TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1851
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt in the said writ petitions was that those revised assessment orders were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing. On that ground itself, the revised assessment orders were set aside and the writ petitions were ordered by order dated 13.12.2012 by the writ Court, remitting the matter back to the assessing officer for reconsideration and re-assessment, of course after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant / dealer. 3. In pursuance of the remand order made by the writ Court, the Revenue issued a letter on 08.01.2013, directing the appellant / dealer to appear for personal hearing on 21.01.2013. The appellant / dealer filed a reply on 18.01.2013 that he had to undergo a major surgery and therefore he wanted 30 days time to attend the personal hearing. Thereafter, there had been no communication from the Revenue according to the appellant / dealer. 4. On 05.03.2013, on behalf of the appellant / dealer, his counsel issued a letter to the Government Pleader about the filing of the writ appeal against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 13.12.2012. It is to be noted herein that, even though the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....03.2021, the appellant/dealer had chosen to file another round of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10564 and 10567 of 2021. 10. During the pendency of these writ petitions, those writ appeals in W.A.SR.Nos.8567 and 8571 of 2023 which in fact were filed against the order passed by the Writ Court in the first round of litigation dated 13.12.2012 came to be dismissed on the basis of the submission that was made before the Division Bench that what has been required by the appellant has already been furnished by the Revenue and therefore, no further adjudication is required in the main writ appeals. Hence, at the SR stage itself, those writ appeals were dismissed by an order of the Division Bench dated 24.01.2022. 11. Heard Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant who has primarily raised two grounds. The first ground he raised was that, even though under the provisions of the TNGST Act, 1959 there has been no limitation prescribed, within which time the revised assessment should be completed, in case of any inordinate delay in completing such revised assessment, on the ground of such inordinate delay itself, such kind of assessment orders can be interfered with and in this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the matter ought not to have been remitted for re-assessment, as directed by the learned single Judge through the impugned order, is the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 15. We have heard Ms. Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent / Revenue. She would reiterate the findings given by the learned single Judge in the impugned order and would state that, pursuant to the said order, already the D3 report as required by the appellant has been furnished to him and the notice for personal hearing also has been given. At that stage since these appeals have been filed, the Revenue is ready and willing to give such personal hearing and to re-assess the matter and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, she contended. 16. We have considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed before us. 17. Insofar as the first ground of delay raised by Mr. A.P. Srinivas is concerned, in fact if we trace the track record of the case, which travelled from 2011 to 2022, the major delay caused was because of the attitude on the part of the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt / dealer to get D3 report is concerned, there has been no proof before this Court that such a request had been made on 18.06.2012. Further, we are able to find that before the writ Court, the said issue was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Even though it was stated by Mr. A.P. Srinivas that in the letter dated 18.06.2012 issued by the Revenue, the letter of the appellant / dealer dated 05.06.2012 is mentioned and the last sentence of the letter of the Department dates 18.06.2012 states " In the circumstances, the attested copies of the assessment files could not be furnished." From the above, it cannot be construed that the appellant/dealer had made a specific request to the Revenue to provide the D3 report. If such a copy of the assessment files is required, that was supplied by the Revenue by letter dated 18.06.2012. 22. Therefore, without asking any such D3 report to the knowledge of the Revenue, when such ground was raised for the first time before the writ Court at the time of hearing the two writ petitions and that was also taken note of by the learned Judge and he in fact found that non-furnishing of such D3 report is violation of principles o....