9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 787 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - levy and collection of resale tax u/s 3H of the Tamil Nadu Government Sales Tax - Super Kerosene Oil - Assessment Year 2002-2003 - HELD THAT - The order of this Court in W.P.No.10423 of 2019 dated 25.10.2019 and the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner on 04.03.2021 has not discussed the issue on merits. Merely because, the appeal was rejected and the writ petition was disposed, does not mean that the application filed under Section 55 of the TNGST Act can be dismissed without any discussion. The petitioner appears to have made out a case for rectification. This aspect has not been discussed in the impugned order. The case is remanded back to the respondent to pass a speaking order on merits as to whether indeed application under Section 55 of the TNGST Act, 1959 is maintainable on facts - this writ petition stands disposed by directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Order and consequential order under Section 55 of TNGST Act, 1959; Maintainability of application/petition under Section 55; Scope of rectification under Section 55(3-A) of TNGST Act; Delay in filing appeal and subsequent application/petition under Section 55; Interpretation of previous court orders and dismissal of appeal petition; Consideration of rectification application by the respondent; Quashing of the order and remitting the case back to the respondent. Analysis: The writ petition challenges the Assessment Order dated 27.12.2018 and the consequential order under Section 55 of the TNGST Act. The petitioner had withdrawn a previous writ petition in 2015, leading to the Assessment Order in question. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal petition belatedly, which was dismissed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner as time-barred under Section 31 of the Act. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 55 of the TNGST Act, which was met with a notice from the respondent questioning its maintainability. The petitioner argues that the respondent erred in demanding resale tax and surcharge on the entire turnover instead of the specific period mentioned in the Assessment Order. The petitioner contends that previous court orders did not delve into the merits of the case, and therefore, the application under Section 55 should be considered. Reference is made to Section 55(3-A) of the Act, which allows rectification even if the matter has been subject to appeal or revision. On the other hand, the respondent opposes the application, citing a Division Bench decision that limits the scope of rectification under Section 55. The respondent argues that there is no "error apparent on the face of record" requiring detailed argument, and the belated application lacks merit. Additionally, the respondent criticizes the petitioner for prolonging the dispute by filing appeals out of time, contrary to court orders. After hearing both parties, the court notes that previous orders did not discuss the merits of the case and directs the respondent to reconsider the rectification application. The court emphasizes the need for a speaking order on the maintainability of the Section 55 application and instructs the respondent to review the computation of tax liability, considering relevant government orders and clarifications. The court quashes the order dated 26.11.2021 and remits the case back to the respondent for a fresh decision within three months. In conclusion, the court's decision focuses on the proper consideration of the rectification application under Section 55 of the TNGST Act, emphasizing the importance of addressing the merits of the case and ensuring the correct computation of tax liability.
|
