9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant that the learned single judge ought to have specifically directed the second respondent to return the amount is correct and it has to be accepted. In the result, the writ appeal is partly allowed. The order passed in Writ petition to the extent to which relief is not granted is fulfilled and the ungranted relief of return of the amount to the extent of ₹ 33,61,000/- is ordered. - WA No. 1651 of 2015, MP No. 1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2016 - M. Jaichandren And S. Vimala, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Joseph Prabakar For the Respondent : Mr S Kanmani Annamalai JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. Vimala, J) This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 2013-2014 the appellant preferred appeal before the second respondent along with an application for stay. As per the mandate of Section 51 (1) of the TANVAT Act 2006, the appellant paid an amount of ₹ 16,80,500/- representing 25% of the disputed tax amount. By the order, dated 26.03.2015, the second respondent, while passing the order of stay directed the appellant to pay further amount of ₹ 16,80,500/- being 25% of the disputed tax amount. The Appellate Authority further directed the appellant to furnish the Bank Guarantee for the remaining 50% of the disputed tax amount amounting to ₹ 33,61,000/-. The appellant complied with all the conditions and deposited the amount as directed. 6. The appellate authority (the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondents that the writ appeal it selfis not maintainable as the appellant cannot have any grievance against the order allowing the Writ Petition. 10. No doubt the writ petition has been allowed; but the question is whether it is allowed in toto or in piece meal is the issue. A perusal of the order reveals that out of several relief claimed only part of the relief has been granted and the remaining relief is not granted. Therefore, the contention that the writ appeal is not maintainable on the ground that writ petition has been allowed cannot be accepted. 11. The next issue to be considered is whether the amount paid by the appellant ought to have been directed to be returned by the second respondent. 12. The contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore the appeal is not entertain able. The decision was not on the merits of the subject matter but on the entertainability of the subject matter itself. This finding is clearly on the jurisdiction of the second respondent and when the second respondent held that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal itself, then contemporaneously the Appellate Authority should have ordered return of the amount paid under the orders of the Second respondent. 14. The issue relating to jurisdiction may govern issues relating to territorial jurisdiction, jurisdiction over subject matter and jurisdiction over the persons concerned. So far as this case is concerned the jurisdiction is with reference to the subject matter itself. When the secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
