Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

9.It is evident that the Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner pursuant to the circular dated 20.10.2011 though the circular has not been referred in the Show Cause Notice. In Interfit Techno Products Ltd. Vs. Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chennai and Another, (2015) 81 VST 389 (Mad), a learned Single Judge of this Court has already held that there is no necessity to quash the circular. The facts remain that the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was passed, even though the petitioner specifically requested for adjournment vide letter dated 25.10.2013 and filed its ____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 4 of 8 objections on 13.11.2013. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:-