9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner calls for interference - matter is remanded to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. - W.P. Nos. 6989 & 6990 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.Parthasarathy for : Mr.N.Inbarajan For the Respondents : Mr.k.Venkatesh, Government Advocate ORDER Heard Mr.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, has filed these wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rately challenging the assessment order. 4. I had an occasion to consider the very same issue in the case of the P.C.W.Castings Private Ltd., against the Assistant Commissioner, Nandambakkam, in W.P.No.38853 of 2016, dated 08.11.2016. After taking note of various decisions, it was held that as against the order of rectification passed, resulting in the modification of the original order, there was a right of appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Appellate Authority, after extracting the grounds of appeal, has devoted more than 4 to 5 paragraphs of the order commenting upon the action initiated by the Assessing Officer in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusion 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 follows: '6. As far as the first issue on the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, in the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Thus, by applying the above decision to the facts of the case, the only conclusion that could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
