9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 527 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCondonation of delay in filing appeal - exclusion of period during which the application under section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 was pending before the second respondent for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation as stipulated under section 51 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 - Held that - In the instant case, the original assessment order dated 07.05.2015 was received by the petitioner on 12.05.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 on 04.06.2015 which was rejected by the second respondent on 25.06.2015 and the rejection order copy was received by the petitioner on 01.07.2015. The period of 21 days when the application for rectification was kept pending before the second respondent under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 has to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation. If that period is excluded, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent on 28.07.2015 is well within the prescribed period of 60 days as stipulated under Section 51 of the TN VAT Act, 2006. The first respondent ought to have entertained the Appeal and passed orders in accordance with law but in the instant case it has not been done so - the Appeal petition is restored to the file of the first respondent, who shall admit and decide the writ appeal on merits and in accordance with law - petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the impugned order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the first respondent in Appeal No. & Year VAT AP NO. 224/2015. 2. Calculation of the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 51 of the TN VAT Act, 2006. 3. Exclusion of the period during which the rectification application was pending before the second respondent for calculating the period of limitation. 4. Interpretation of Section 55(4) of the Act regarding rectification orders and the right of appeal. Issue 1: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TN VAT Act, challenged the order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the first respondent in Appeal No. & Year VAT AP NO. 224/2015. The petitioner contended that the appeal was dismissed by the first respondent on the grounds of being filed beyond the prescribed period of 60 days under Section 51 of the TN VAT Act, 2006. The petitioner argued that the period during which the rectification application was pending before the second respondent should be excluded for calculating the period of limitation. The writ petition was filed challenging the impugned order. Issue 2: The petitioner received the original assessment order dated 07.05.2015 on 12.05.2015 and filed a rectification application under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 on 04.06.2015, which was rejected on 25.06.2015. The petitioner contended that the period of 21 days during which the rectification application was pending should be excluded for calculating the period of limitation. If this period was excluded, the appeal filed on 28.07.2015 would be within the prescribed 60-day period under Section 51 of the TN VAT Act, 2006. Issue 3: The Court referred to previous judgments, including a decision where it was held that any order declining to correct errors leaves the original order intact until rectification is ordered. The right of appeal arises only when rectification is ordered and a party is aggrieved by the modification. Section 55(4) of the Act was interpreted to clarify that the party has the right to appeal against the order of rectification resulting in the modification of the original order. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should have been allowed to appeal the order of rectification. Issue 4: Based on the interpretation of previous judgments and Section 55(4) of the Act, the Court concluded that the impugned order should be set aside, and the appeal petition should be restored to the file of the first respondent for a decision on merits and in accordance with the law. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the first respondent to hear and decide the appeal properly.
|
