9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 92 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant had merely asked for adjournment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition by giving liberty to the appellant to workout the remedy - HELD THAT - There are no merits in the present Writ Appeal. It is noticed that the time granted by the learned Single Judge for filing the appeal against the orders of the respondent vide impugned order dated 23.06.2022 while dismissing the Writ Petition, has expired. Therefore, while dismissing this Writ Appeal, the period granted by the learned Single Judge for filing the appeal is further extended by another two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Challenging impugned order in Writ Appeal against dismissal in Writ Petition. Issue 1: Impugned Order Dismissal The Writ Appeal was filed against the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3972 of 2019. The Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition, allowing the appellant to file an appeal against the respondent's orders within two weeks from the date of the order. The appellant had challenged the impugned proceedings of the respondent for various assessment years. The appellant's case was based on a favorable decision by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the respondent's appeals against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's orders for the assessment years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996. Issue 2: Appellant's Argument The appellant argued that the respondent had filed an appeal before the court against the Tribunal's decision, which was pending. The appellant contended that the Single Judge's order should be set aside, and the challenged orders of the respondent should be quashed. The appellant sought relief based on the Tribunal's decision in their favor and the pending appeal by the respondent. Issue 3: Respondent's Position The Government Advocate (Tax) opposed the Writ Appeal, citing two decisions by the Division Bench of the High Court that were against the appellant. The respondent argued that the issue was now covered against the appellant based on the mentioned decisions. The Government Advocate (Tax) presented the judgments in support of their position, asserting that the appellant's case lacked merit in light of the Division Bench decisions. Issue 4: Court's Decision Upon hearing both parties, the court declined to make observations on the merits of the case regarding the conflicting decisions. The court noted that the time granted for filing an appeal against the respondent's orders had expired. The court decided to dismiss the Writ Appeal, extending the period for filing an appeal by two weeks from the date of the current order. The court directed the appellant to file the appeal within the extended timeframe, emphasizing that the appellate authority should dispose of the appeal on merits promptly, preferably within three months from the receipt of the appeal. Conclusion: The Writ Appeal was dismissed by the High Court, granting the appellant an extended period to file an appeal against the respondent's orders. The court refrained from commenting on the conflicting decisions and directed the appellant to pursue the appeal within the specified timeframe for further consideration by the appellate authority.
|
