9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For the Respondents : Mr. K. Venkatesh ORDER Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials available on record, including the written instructions given by the second respondent to the learned Special Government Pleader. 2. The order impugned in this Writ Petition is an order passed by the first respondent, the appellate authority rejecting the petitioner's appeal petition, as not maintainable. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.08.2016, by which, the error occurred in the assessment order was rectified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he satisfaction of the dealer. This is so because the revenue did not prefer any appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer entertaining the petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act and rectifying the mistakes in the assessment order dated 30.12.2014. Thus, the exercise adopted by the second respondent was uncalled for. 7. Secondly, it has to be seen as to whether the second respondent was justified in rejecting the appeal as not entertainable. This conclusion of the second respondent is incorrect, since the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act stood merged with the order of assessment dated 30.12.2014. Thus, in effect, the order of assessment passed against the petitioner is a modif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 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 by Amendment Act No. 31 of 1972, providing for appeal and revision remedy when an order of rectification is made, and not when the authority concerned refuses to pass an order of rectification. 7. Similar view was also taken in the decision of this Court reported in 114 STC 359 STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. SPEEDLINE AGENCIES. This Court, in paragraph 5 of the judgment, pointed out as follows:- Any order made by an authority declining to correct any alleged error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
