TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n between an order allowing an application for rectification and thereby rectifying or modifying the original order of assessment and an order rejecting an application for rectification. When the rectification proceedings resulted in a positive action, which has the effect of destroying the finality of original assessment, thereby reopening the assessment order itself, then the provisions relating to appeal would lie. On the other hand, when the Assessing Officer refuses to interfere with the original order and that order is allowed to remain intact, the said order would not be amenable normally to appeal remedy. In so holding, this Court referred to the provisions under Section 55(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, inserted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the stay petition filed by the petitioner. - W.P.No.36223 of 2016 & WMP No.31153 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Srikanth For the Respondents : Mr. K. Venkatesh ORDER Heard Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate accepting notice on behalf of the respondents and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 [TNVAT Act] and the Central Sales Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the disputed turnover is ₹ 14,12,297/- and the petitioner has paid ₹ 3,55,000/-, being 25% of the disputed tax and enclosed the challan to prove the same. The petitioner requested that the Appeal may be admitted for consideration on merits. The petitioner also filed a Stay Petition along with the Appeal and prayed for stay of the balance amount of tax. 4. However, the first respondent has returned the Appeal Petition by stating that the petitioner has filed the Appeal Petition as against the rectified order and therefore, not entertainable. 5. This very issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of ARTIS LEATHERS v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) AND ANR [W.P.No.25433 of 2016 dt 17.08.2016]. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As far as the first issue on the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, in the decision reported in 39 STC 260 STATE OF TAMIL NADU v.CROMPTON ENGG. CO., this Court held that there is a clear and a real distinction between an order allowing an application for rectification and thereby rectifying or modifying the original order of assessment and an order rejecting an application for rectification. When the rectification proceedings resulted in a positive action, which has the effect of destroying the finality of original assessment, thereby reopening the assessment order itself, then the provisions relating to appeal would lie. On the other hand, when the Assessing Officer refuses to interfere with the original order and that order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the light of the above stated decisions and in view of Section 55(4) of the Act, the first question is answered against the Revenue. Thus, 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. 9. In the light of the above discussion and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order calls for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the appeal petition is restored to the file of the second respondent, who shall hear and decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|