Page 102 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

60 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
raised by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent lacks jurisdiction in that regard
and only if the 2nd respondent takes a considered view that jurisdiction is avail-
able, he can proceed and deal with the merits of the matter. The petitioner may
give written submissions/written objections in the matter, without much delay
preferably within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment, along with certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the 2nd
respondent will issue notice of hearing to the petitioner and grant personal op-
portunity of being heard to the petitioner through authorised counsel and should
comply with the above said directions as aforestated.
7. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civ-
il) will stand finally disposed of.

_______

2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 60 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.
DELPHI TVS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), CHENNAI
W.P. Nos. 11757, 11765, 11769, 11774 & 11777 of 2019 and W.M.P. Nos. 11968,
11974, 11978, 11984 & 11988 of 2019, decided on 9-9-2019
Adjudication - Procedure - Natural justice - Assessee seeking time to
file its objection and its letter received by Assessing Officer, as found in the
impugned order itself - Failure by Assessing Officer to inform assessee as to
whether its request was accepted or rejected - Assessing Officer bound to send
a communication and inform result of assessee’s request - In absence of any
such communication, a reasonable presumption is drawn that assessee’s re-
quest was accepted - Failure to pass any order of assessee’s request and pass-
ing of assessment order straightway amounted to violation of principles of
natural justice - Assessment orders set aside and matter remitted back to the
Assessing Officer to redo assessment after receiving assessee’s reply and pass
order of assessment on merits - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [paras 7, 8]
Matter remanded
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri N. Prasad for N. Inbarajan, for the Petitioner.
Shri M. Hariharan, Additional Government Pleader
(T), for the Respondent.
[Order (Common)]. - The present writ petitions are filed challenging the
orders of assessment passed in respect of assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment orders
were passed in violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was
not given time to file their objections in response to the notices of proposals.
3. On the other hand, it is the case of the Revenue that notices of pro-
posal were sent individually to the assessee and since no objection was filed, the

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  102