AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for Taxes,
appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned order, dated 09.03.2011, had been
passed by the first Respondent, in the revision petition filed by the Petitioner on 04.03.2011, without considering the grounds raised by the
Petitioner in the said revision petition and without giving proper reasons for rejecting the revision petition. The only reason stated by the first
Respondent for rejecting the revision petition filed by the Petitioner is that it had been filed, belatedly, beyond the time limit of 30 days, prescribed
for the filing of such a petition.
From a reading of the impugned order of the first Respondent, dated 09.03.2011, it would be seen that No. proper reasons had been given by
the first Respondent for rejecting the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner in the revision petition filed by the Petitioner, on 04.03.2011.
Further, it is noted that the Petitioner had paid the entire tax and the compounding fee, while releasing the goods in question.
In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first Respondent, dated 09.03.2011, is set aside. The Petitioner is permitted to re-present the
revision petition, dated 04.03.2011, to the first Respondent, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such
re-presentation being made, the first Respondent is directed to consider all the grounds raised by the Petitioner in the revision petition filed by the
Petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the
authorised representative of the Petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter.
The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No. costs.