9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 this liberty, these writ petitions stand allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 3. Accordingly, the matters had been remitted back to the second respondent-assessing authority to re-assess and pass a fresh order. Accordingly, the issue had been reconsidered and fresh orders had been passed by the second respondent for each of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment 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 has not been provided for in Section 51 and 52, may file an application for Revision Petition, before the Joint Commissioner (ST) having Jurisdiction. In this Revision Petition the dealer has objected the notice issued by the Assessing Officer only and not against any Proceedings or order of the Assessing Officer. Hence, according to Section 54, a notice issued by the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 respondent. Hence, the first respondent has taken a view that as against the revised assessment order only appeal could have been filed by the petitioner instead, the revision ought not to have been filed therefore, on that ground, revision filed by the petitioner had been rejected through the impugned order by the first respondent. Hence, the learned Government Advocate wants to sustain those orders and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll 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 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 dated 07.12.2020, where, he has specifically stated that the case should be finally considered and a revised order, under Section 84 of the Act, by rectifying the mistakes committed, by passing the assessment order at an very earliest date, can be passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 is inclined to dispose of all these writ petitions with the following directions: "that the impugned orders passed in these writ petitions by the first respondent as well as the order against which such revision was filed by the petitioner that is the order by way of notice dated 07.01.2021 passed in all these cases by the second respondent are hereby quashed. The matter is now remitted back at the stage of Section 84 application dated 07.12.2020 submitted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
