9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders of this Court dated 06.02.2018 - the second respondent assessing authority, after reconsideration, passed a revised assessment order on 21.01.2020 in all these cases. As against those orders, if the petitioner has got aggrieved, no doubt, he can prefer an appeal under Section 51 of the Act, however, in the case in hand, it is the case of the petitioner that some apparent error occurred in the order of revised assessment passed by the second respondent dated 21.01.2020. Therefore, in such case, the petitioner can very well invoke the power vest with the authorities to rectify the mistake under Section 84 of the Act. Whether any error apparently available on the face of the record, has to be ascertained and decided only by the assessing authority or the appellate authority or the revising authority as the case may be, when such application under Section 84 is filed by the Assessee, once such application is filed, the same should be disposed of in the manner as has been provided under Section 84 of the Act. Here in the case in hand, such invocation has been made by the petitioner under Section 84 of the Act and accordingly, when he filed an application by way of representation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and are disposed of by this common order. 2 . As against the petitioner in respect of assessment years 2008-2009 to 2014-2015 assessment orders have been passed by the second respondent, by order dated 20.06.2017. The said order had been challenged by the petitioner in a batch of writ petitions in W.P(MD).Nos. 2023 and 2029 of 2018 on the ground that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice. A learned Judge of this Court having entertained those writ petitions passed the following order by his order dated 06.02.2018 which reads thus: 2.The petitioner was issued with pre-revision notice. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a letter seeking grant of further time. Without formally considering the said request for grant of further time, the respondent chose to pass the final order. The final orders are vitiated for not having afforded due opportunity to the petitioner. Since the final orders have clearly infringed the principles of natural justice, this Court is inclined to quash the same. The matters are however remitted to the file of the respondent with liberty to pass fresh orders after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. 3.With thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order dated 21.01.2020. 5. Having receipt of the said notice/order dated 07.01.2021, the petitioner having found any appeal provision against such order/notice dated 07.01.2021 has invoked the revisional power of the joint commissioner concerned under Section 54 of the Act and filed revisions before the first respondent on 04.03.2021 separately, in respect of each of the assessment order. Those revision petitions filed dated 04.03.2021 separately, for each of the assessment year referred to above, by the petitioner, had been rejected by separate orders passed by the first respondent dated 15.03.2021, wherein the first respondent, by stating the following, has rejected the said revision: The Dealer has filed the Revision Petition against the Notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Jaihindpuram Circle, Madurai. According to Section 51 and 52 of the Act, any person objecting to an order passed by the assessing authority u/s.24,27,28,29,34 and 40 of the Act can only file appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) having jurisdiction. According to Section 54 of the Act, any person objecting to any order passed or Proceedings for which an appeal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd order has been passed by this Court on 06.02.2018 pursuant to which, the issue had been reassessed or reconsidered and after reconsideration, the second respondent-assessing authority has come to the conclusion that what has been passed in the earlier assessment order can be reiterated, accordingly, reiterating the same, the revised assessment orders had been passed on 21.01.2020. He would further submit that as against the said revised assessment orders, appeal could have been filed by the petitioner to the appellate authority, instead, the petitioner had given only a representation to the original authority, that is, the second respondent on 07.12.2020, therefore, on considering the same, the original authority, that is, the second respondent has advised the petitioner to prefer a regular appeal if he has got aggrieved over the revised assessment order. Therefore the learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner could have filed regular appeal against the revised assessment order, instead, he had chosen to challenge the said advise ofcourse in the form of notice given by the second respondent, by way of revision under Section 54 of the Act before the first respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty and thereupon the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall apply as if such notice had been given in the first instance. (4) The powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the assessing authorities even though the original order of assessment, if any, passed in the matter has been the subject matter of an appeal or revision. (5) The provisions of this Act relating to appeal and revision shall apply to an order or rectification made under this section as they apply to the order in respect of which such order of rectification has been made. such kind of power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record is vested with not only the assessing authority but also to the appellate as well as the revising authority including the appellate tribunal. Whether any such error apparently available on the face of the record, has to be ascertained and decided only by the assessing authority or the appellate authority or the revising authority as the case may be, when such application under Section 84 is filed by the Assessee, once such application is filed, the same should be disposed of in the manner as has been provided under Section 84 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice pursuant to the application submitted by the Assessee under Section 84 of the Act. 16 . Therefore, this Court cannot find fault with the petitioner in preferring a revision before the first respondent. 17 . However, before filing the revision, even at the hands of the assessing authority, that is the respondent, there has been a mistake, as he has not disposed Section 84 application dated 07.12.2020, instead, he has issued only an advisory by way of notice on 07.01.2021 to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the various provisions as discussed hereinabove, such course of action ought not to have been taken by the second respondent while disposing an application filed under Section 84 of the Act. Therefore, this Court feel that the orders, which are impugned herein passed by the first respondent dated 15.03.2021 as well as the notice dated 07.01.2021 advising the petitioner to file a regular appeal against the revised assessment order cannot stand in the legal scrutiny, therefore, both the orders passed by the first and second respondent are liable to be interfered with by this Court. 18 . In that view of the matter this Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
