9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Writ Appeal No. 3985 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2008 - RAVIRAJA PANDIAN K. AND JANARTHANA RAJA P.P.S. , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by K. AVIRAJA PANDIAN J. The appeal is filed by the assessee questioning the correctness of the order dated October 23, 2003 made in Writ Petition No. 38269 of 2002 since reported in Sumangala Steels Limited v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai [2004] 137 STC 517. The appellant is a dealer in iron and steel and an assessee on the file of the third respondent. For the assessment year 1997-98 the appellant-assessee filed return reporting total and taxable turnover of Rs. 17,95,64,901 and Rs. 4,72,07,862, respectively, under the Central Sales Tax Act. On the basis of the return, assessment order was passed on March 24, 2002 arriving at the taxable turnover as follows: 1. Inter-State sales covered by C form : Rs. 11,46,763 at 4 % 2. Consignment sales not covered by form F : Rs. 88,25,714 at 8 % 3. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier order passed automatically merges with the subsequent order. Hence, the subsequent order can only be regarded as an order of assessment, which is very well appealable under section 9(2) of the CST Act read with section 31 of the TNGST Act. However, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents argued for sustaining the order impugned in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. The facts are very clear. The appellant was on March 24, 2000 originally assessed for the assessment year 1997-98 on a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,72,07,862 as follows: 1. Inter-State sales covered by form C : Rs. 11,46,763 at 4% 2. Consignment sales not covered by form F : Rs. 88,25,714 at 8% 3. Stock transfer to Bangalore branch not covered by form F By order dated May 31, 2000 accepting the form F filed by the assessee for the third turnover stated above, i.e., stock transfer of Bangalore branch, the assessing off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of this Act relating to appeal and revision shall apply to an order of rectification made under this section as they apply to the order in respect of which such order of rectification has been made. The learned counsel placed reliance on sub-clause (4) which provides that the provisions of TNGST Act relating to the appeal and revision shall apply to an order of rectification made under section 55 as they apply to the order passed in respect of which such order of rectification has been made. As already stated, the appellant cannot have any grievance about the order dated May 31, 2000 which granted the relief as sought for by it. In respect of the consignment sales turnover, no relief has been sought for by filing necessary declaration form as required under the TNGST Act. Clause (4) of section 55 of the TNGST Act could be taken in aid only when an adverse order is passed in an application taken out under section 55, which is subject to the revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner under section 33 of the TNGST Act, which gives a revisional remedy against an order or proceedings recorded under the Act for which an appeal has not been provided for in sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 7, 1949 and thereafter on January 8, 1980 the Sales Tax Officer issued notice under section 21 of the said Act reopening the assessment on the ground that mandi cess and arhat (commission) has escaped assessment. On January 18, 1980, the Sales Tax Officer passed an order holding that on examination it was found that the appellant has already included the arhat and mandi cess amount in the turnover and he had already been assessed and therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any more tax under the said Act. In 1982, the appellant realised that it was not liable to pay sales tax on purchase made on behalf of ex.-UP principals as such purchases had occasioned inter-State movement and were, therefore, exempt, and filed an application under section 22 on November 4, 1982 for rectification of the assessment. This application was rejected on the ground that it was not filed within three years against the original order dated February 7, 1979. The Tribunal, on appeal, held that the application was within time since the original order dated February 7, 1979 had ceased to exist on the reopening of the assessment under section 21. The final order was passed on January 8, 1980. The rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
