9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It is also noted that the petitioner had complied with the said conditions, on March 28, 2012. As such, the first respondent ought to have heard the appeal filed by the petitioner. - Writ Petition Nos. 23211, 23212 of 2012 , M.P. Nos. 1 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 3-10-2012 - JAICHANDREN M., J. For the Appellant : N. Saiprakash and N. Prasad For the Respondents : A.R. Jayaprathap, Government Advocate (Taxes), ORDER:- W.P. No. 23211 of 2012. M. JAICHANDREN J.- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isputed tax (25 per cent of ₹ 5,26,51,783). On verification of the payment details, it was observed that the appellants had paid ₹ 1,31,62,946 towards disputed tax and ₹ 39,475 towards admitted tax vide cheque No. 054694/September 8, 2011 and Demand Draft No. 058040 dated September 23, 2011, respectively. The payment of the admitted tax and the disputed tax has been confirmed by the assessing authority vide final receipt No. 0304346 dated September 23, 2011 and 0304348 dated September 23, 2011, respectively. The dealers had been served with the assessment order on July 13, 2011 and accordingly the last date for filing the appeal is August 12, 2011 and with a further period of 30 days the last date for filing the appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f receipt of a copy of the said order. It is also noted that the petitioner had complied with the said conditions, on March 28, 2012. As such, the first respondent ought to have heard the appeal filed by the petitioner in Appeal No. AP. C. 10/2011, and should have passed appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, as directed by this court, by its order dated March 1, 2012 (L.G. Electronics India Private Limited v. Government of Tamil Nadu [2013] 62 VST 244 (Mad)), made in W.P. No. 1810 of 2012. However, the first respondent had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, in Appeal No. AP. C. 10/ 2011, as not maintainable. 6. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated July 31, 2012, is set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
