9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is pending from the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2013-2014, all have been considered simultaneously and the issues are common. The period of limitation contended by the petitioner may not arise in this case. In view of the pendency of the assessment, the authorities ought to have given adequate opportunities to the petitioner in this case which is not so. Further, the appeal is a statutory appeal and no person can be denied of statutory appeal. Further, there is a provision for condonation of delay. In view of the same, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal on merits. The delay alone is condoned. The Writ Petitions are disposed of. - W.P.(MD).Nos.17767, 17768 and 17769 of 2022 And W.M.P.(MD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2019. Pursuant to the remanded portion, the second respondent passed an order dated 21.06.2019 showing excess of Rs.98,69,279/- and to that effect Refund Order in Form-P as required was also issued by the second respondent. This being so, the second respondent changed her opinion, passed the impugned order dated 15.02.2021 by refixing the excess amount at Rs.7,94,817/- against the excess amount of Rs.98,69,279/- shown in her own order dated 21.06.2019. 2. The Contention of the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No. 17768 of 2022 is that during the assessment year 2008-2009 (TNVAT), the second respondent had passed the deemed assessment order by accepting returns on 31.10.2014. Thereafter, the second respondent re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 21.06.2019 showing excess of Rs.1,18,51,927/- out of which a sum of Rs.62,06,839/- is adjusted towards the balance for the assessment year 2013-2014 and shown excess of Rs.56,45,088/- in the assessment year 2009-2010. To that effect, the Refund Order in Form-P as required was also issued by the second respondent. This being so, the second respondent on change of opinion passed the impugned order dated 24.02.2021 by refixing the excess amount at Rs.57,78,440/- against the excess amount of Rs.1,18,51,927/- and thereby passed an order in A.P.No.165 of 2018 for the assessment year 2008-2009 and common order in A.P.No.166 of 2018 for the assessment year 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 which are under challenge. Primarily on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have got any grievances, to file the appeal before the first respondent, give reason for delay and first respondent has got power to consider the same if proper reasons are assigned. 5. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. 6. It is seen that admittedly there have been deemed assessment thereafter the assessment have been reopened, considered and I.T.C credits have been verified refund order, thereafter, again it was revisited and the refund had been considerably reduced and orders have been passed in appeal. This case, though the assessment is pending from the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2013-2014, all have been considered simultaneously a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
