2017 (9) TMI 1169 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - appeal passed against rectified order of assessment - Revision of assessment - non submission of C-Forms and dis-allowance of exemption on the aspect of export sale - Held that - Similar issue was tested by this Court in the case of P.C.W.Castings Private Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Nandambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai and another 2016 (12) TMI 314 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where the appeal was presented against a rectified order of assessment. This Court has set aside the impugned order thereon and directed the authority to hear the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. The only conclusion that could be arrived at is to hold that the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner s appeals are not sustainable - the second respondent is directed to take on file the appeal petitions, hear the parties and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeals filed by the petitioner in AP Nos.CST 18/2017 and CST/19/2017.
2. Validity of the orders passed by the second respondent dismissing the appeals.
3. Interpretation of whether an appeal lies against the order passed under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the orders dismissing their appeals, arguing that the appellate authority should have considered their stay petition before rejecting the appeals. They contended that the observation that no appeal lies against the order under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act is untenable, citing a previous court decision. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the petitioner should pursue other remedies under the TNVAT Act and that the appeals were filed against revised orders without challenging the original assessment orders. The main legal issue was whether the reason given by the second respondent for rejecting the appeals was valid. A similar issue was addressed in a previous case, where the court set aside the order and directed the authority to hear the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law.

The court referred to the previous judgment extensively, highlighting that the Appellate Authority should focus on the correctness of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, especially regarding points held against the petitioner. It was emphasized that the order passed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act merged with the original assessment order, making the appeal entertainable. The court cited precedents to support the distinction between rectifying an order and rejecting rectification, indicating that the latter does not normally warrant an appeal remedy. Based on the legal principles established in the cited cases, the court concluded that the impugned orders rejecting the appeals were unsustainable.

Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the second respondent to entertain the appeal petitions, hear the parties, and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with the law. The petitioner was given ten days to represent the appeal, with the requirement for the second respondent to afford an opportunity for personal hearing before deciding on the appeals. The court also instructed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's stay petitions before proceeding with the appeals.