9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment Year 1993-94, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the first appellate authority dismissing the first appeal filed by the petitioner herein as not maintainable when the first appeal had been numbered and heard on merits? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in overlooking the fact that as per Sec.55(4) of the TNGST Act, an appeal would lie against an order passed u/s.55 of the Act? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not considering the fact that in respect of the very same transaction, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Assistant Commissioner (CT) has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Subbu Chemicals (102 STC 613), to dismiss the appeal. Considering the facts of this case, we could find that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order only to rectify the mistake pointed out by the dealers. This revision for rectification does not assessed any escaped turnover for tax, to call it as revision under section 16 of TNGST Act, 1959, for which alone appeal stands before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT). Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its order in W.P.No.11008 & 11009 of 2004 dated 17.02.2011, has remanded the issues to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the rectification of mistake of wrong credit was done only based on the request of the dealers. Further, this assessment order again rectified on 19.03.96 (Assessment File Page-599) on the request of the dealers. No where it was stated that the dealers objected the turnovers. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the plea of the appellants narrated in the grounds as well as the averments putforth through arguments. As we find no reason to interfere in the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), we confirm the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT)." 5. The learned counsel for the Assessee Mr.C.Subramanian fairly submitted that the Assessment for the Assessment Year 1993-94 in quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Sales made by the Assessee of the goods received in the course of inter-State Trade or Commerce. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the Original Assessment order does not merge with the Rectification Order passed by the Assessing Authority. In the present case, the Rectification as prayed by the Assessee only was allowed by the Assessing Authority himself and therefore, we do not find any reason for the Assessee to to file further Appeal against such Rectification Order in his own favour. 8. We fail to understand what prevented the Assessee from assailing the Original Assessment Order dated 31.3.1995 itself. The submission made by the learned counsel for the Assessee that the Original Assessment O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
