The Madras High Court dismissed the petition since the issuance of notice by the department was proved based on corroborative evidence.
Tvl.Sri Maharaja Industries, the petitioner argued that the principle of natural justice was not followed before passing the impugned order and no opportunity for a personal hearing was granted.
It was further submitted that the respondent-state, before passing the impugned order did not consider the judgement of the Supreme Court cited by the petitioner in support of his claim made before the forum.
In the impugned order, it was evident that the notice has been given to the petitioner and the petitioner has also submitted his reply and thereafter enquiry has been conducted.
The request of the dealer was seen to be not capable of consideration and that finding was recorded after considering the materials produced by the petitioner.
A single-judge bench comprising Justice R N Manjula observed that even if the petitioner is aggrieved due to any omission committed on the part of the respondent authority, there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders by way of filing revision/ appeal before the competent authority.
The Court dismissed the petition as it was evident that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
