9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 16(2) of the Act. In the circumstances,, the writ petition is allowed by quashing the recovery proceedings initiated by the second respondent subject to compliance with the above stated condition. - W.P. No. 3876 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2010 - CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. ORDER:- MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN J. The petitioner has approached this court earlier in W.P. No. 26555 of 2004 (Sharana Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer) challenging the assessment order dated July 7, 2004 on the ground that the order passed is contrary to the decision of this court rendered in W.P. No. 10810 of 2000 dated December 4, 2001. The said claim is related to the proceedings taken against the petitioner in respect of for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected as not admissible. It is seen that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the appellate authority has sent a notice as stated above indicating its intention to reject the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when this court had set aside the order in toto as against the assessment passed under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on September 29, 2009, the petitioner has the right of appeal to the appellate authority and hence, the appeal was rightly filed. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned order is passed consequent to the order passed by this court directing the assessing authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability, to that extent, the order passed on March 24, 2000 stood rectified. Consequently, there was no change in the liability as regards the inter-State sales covered by form C and consignment sales not covered by form F and thus the order passed on May 31, 2000 rectifying the first assessment order dated March 24, 2000 was only a rectification. Since the order passed on May 31, 2000 is not an appealable order, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. Further, it was pointed out by the Divi sion Bench that under the appeal provisions in sections 31 and 31A, orders passed under section 55 are not appealable. The situation in the case on hand cannot be compared to the reported decision. It is no doubt true that the directions of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
