AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the notice, dated 9-3-2011, issued by the respondent requesting the petitioner firm as to whether it would like to avail the opportunity of being heard in person, with regard to the amount of rebate claimed by the petitioner and with regard to the arrears of excise duty due to be paid by the petitioner. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the writ petition is premature in nature. In fact, the impugned notice had only requested the petitioner to confirm as to whether it would like to be heard in person, in respect of the rebate claimed by the petitioner and with regard to the excise duty due to be paid by the petitioner. He had also submitted that a notice, dated 17-3-2011, had been issued, addressed to the petitioner, to that effect.
In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned notice of the respondent, dated 9-3-2011. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P. No. 1 of 2011 is closed.