9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ints which have been held against the petitioner? - Held that: - as against the order of rectification passed resulting in the modification of the original order passed, the assessee has the right of appeal before the appellate forum. Appeal petition restored to the file of the second respondent, who shall hear and decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - W.P.No.25433 of 2016, W.M.P.No.21759 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Senniappan For the Respondents : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai ORDER Heard Mr.R.Senniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admit that except for one issue pertaining to invisible loss, all other issues which were brought to the notice of the first respondent in the rectification petition were considered and a decision was taken in favour of the petitioner. Only with regard to the issue pertaining to invisible loss, the petitioner's grievance is that a proper finding was not given by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent by appeal petition dated 23.03.2015. This appeal petition has been rejected as not entertainable by the second respondent/Appellate Authority by the impugned order. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Appellate Authority, after extracting the grounds of appeal, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uant to the exercise of powers under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. 8. In the light of the said fact, the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority that the appeal is not entertainable is incorrect. I am supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Sabarigiri Industries reported in [2013] 58 VST 454 (Mad). Among other issues which were considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the first issue which was taken for consideration was regards the maintainability of the appeal. The facts of the said case also was more or less identical to the case on hand and while deciding the question relating to the maintainability, the Hon'ble Division Bench has held as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er intact. It is only when rectification is ordered, and as consequence, one of the parties is aggrieved by such modification, a remedy is required to be provided. For that purpose Section 55(4) of the Act has been introduced. That new sub-section (4) of Section 55 does not confer a right on an applicant who successfully seeks rectification, to file appeal or revision against the order declining to rectify. If the authority which made the original order is of the view that there are in fact no errors in the order which need to be rectified, or can be rectified under Section 55 of the Act, no further proceedings can be taken by applicant, against the refusal of the authority to make an order in favour of the person applying for rectification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
