proposal, petitioner also filed an objection. The proposal was sent to treat certain omissions and thereby to impose penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act at 150 % of the tax involved on the estimated omissions in his notice dated 31.08.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed objections on 17.10.2015 enclosing F-Form for the month of November 2014, seeking a further time of 30 days to produce the F-Forms in respect of stock transfers effected to the Branch Office at Karaikal on the ground that the error in the Online Website Request was not rectified till date. However, in respect of purchase effected from Arun Oil Trade, Chennai ,based on the mismatch, the petitioner clearly explained that there was no any purchase effected by them from Arun Oil Trade, Chennai, that the TIN No. 33633766934/2014-2015 said to have been purchased inspite of two Tin Nos. 33633766934/2014-2015 from Arun Oil Trade, Chennai were said to have been effected by the petitioner. Specific denial was made stating that no such purchase was effected from Arun Oil Trade, Chennai. Even in respect of RBD Palmolein edible oil bearing TIN No. 33721281211, it was clearly indicated that the said purchase was effected only in the name of Balaji Oil Industries Private Limited. But they denied the import in respect of TIN No.33721281211. But the respondent without giving personal hearing, and even furnishing the documents, as contemplated under Section 22(4) of the Act, wrongly passed impugned order. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed, he pleaded.
