9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of proceedings and therefore by its very nature could not apply when the remand made by the first appellate authority contained adverse directions and findings? Held that: - The impugned order having been passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) under Section 51(3) is an appealable order - In terms of third proviso under Section 58(1), no appeal shall be admitted against an order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 or by the appellate Joint Commissioner under Section 52 as the case may be setting aside the assessment and directing the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment. Therefore, the embargo placed under the said proviso would operate when the appellate authority exercising power either u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by its very nature could not apply when the remand made by the first appellate authority contained adverse directions and findings iii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have seen that on merits, the levy of tax of ₹ 2,60,708/- (TC 1/18), ₹ 2,89,230/- (TC 2/18), ₹ 3,84,763/- (TC 3/18), ₹ 8,27,488/- (TC 4/18), ₹ 7,75,255/- (TC 5/18), ₹ 7,62,157/-(TC 6/18) and ₹ 5,48,838/- (TC 7/18) on the supply of fresh stock of medicines and formulations made by the petitioners to their stockists after taking back the life expired stock was illegal since it was only a case of an exchange or replacement and did not involve sale of goods by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in failing to note that the embargo contained in the Third Proviso to Section 58(1) of TNVAT Act, 2006, was intended to reduce multiplicity of proceedings and therefore by its very nature could not apply when the remand made by the first appellate authority contained adverse directions and findings 5.The petitioner is a public limited company and registered as a dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). The respondent assessesd the petitioner under the provisions of TNVAT Act for the assessment year 2007-08 to 2013-14 and taxed the supplies made by the petitioner in pursuance of a replacement scheme. 6. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of third proviso to Section 58(1), such an appeal is not maintainable since the matter has been remanded to the assessing officer. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner sustained the objection regarding maintainability of the appeals by the impugned order and held that the appeals are not maintainable. This order is challenged in the present tax cases raising the questions of law as mentioned above. 8. Section 58 of the Act deals with appeal to appellate Tribunal. The impugned order having been passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) under Section 51(3) is an appealable order. The petitioners have been non suited by referring to the third proviso under Section 58(1) which reads as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e last few lines of the order passed by the appellate authority, he states that the appeals are remanded back for fresh disposal, the remand is only on one aspect i.e. with regard to the equal time addition. Though the order states that there are two directions in effect, there is only one direction regarding the equal time addition. The other issues are all findings rendered by the appellate authority on the merits of the matter. Therefore, there was no direction to the assessing officer to redo the assessment afresh by setting aside the assesment order. Therefore, in our considered view the Tribunal erred in not entertaining the second appeals filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
