2016 (2) TMI 449 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ appeal partially allowed, appellant to receive deposited amount. Orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.

MI Steel Processing India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Asstt. Commissioner (CT), The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Chennai-South)

The court partly allowed the writ appeal, directing the return of the deposited amount to the appellant. The appellant's challenge to the assessment order ... Question of Refund of amount deposited during pendency of appeal as per the direction and when appeal was dismissed as not maintainable - TNVAT - Held that:- When the second respondent held that there is no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issues raised, then the consequential orders passed are also without jurisdiction and it is a nullity. It is settled law that any order passed without jurisdiction is non-est in the eye of law. Therefore, the second respondent should have ordered the return of amount which was already paid by the appellant herein. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the learned single judge ought to have specifically directed the second respondent to return the amount is correct and it has to be accepted. In the result, the writ appeal is partly allowed. The order passed in Writ petition to the extent to which relief is not granted is fulfilled and the ungranted relief of return of the amount to the extent of ₹ 33,61,000/- is ordered. Issues:Challenge to assessment order, Validity of TDS certificate, Appeal dismissal grounds, Return of deposited amount.Analysis:The appellant challenged an assessment order seeking a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash it as arbitrary and illegal, demanding the return of a specific amount and release of a Bank Guarantee. The appellant, engaged in trading and manufacturing, awarded contracts to a corporation without deducting TDS based on certificates received. Despite this, the first respondent deemed the certificates invalid, leading to a TDS payment notice. The appellant appealed, complying with payment conditions set by the second respondent, including a Bank Guarantee. The appeal was dismissed on grounds that TDS issues couldn't be assessed under the relevant Act sections, rendering the appeal not maintainable.The single judge allowed the writ petition, directing the return of appeal papers and permitting a revision petition. The appellant sought the return of the paid amounts and challenged the assessment order. The respondents contended the writ appeal's non-maintainability post the writ petition's allowance. The court clarified that only part of the relief was granted, allowing the appeal's maintainability. The key issue was whether the paid amounts should be returned by the second respondent.The appellant argued that if an appeal is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, the paid amounts should be returned. The second respondent's decision was based on jurisdictional grounds, not merit, making the appeal non-entertainable. The court emphasized that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities, requiring the return of the paid amount. Consequently, the writ appeal was partly allowed, ordering the return of the specific amount.In conclusion, the writ appeal was partly allowed, directing the return of the deposited amount. The appellant was granted time to file a revision petition, and the second respondent was instructed to return the specified amount within a set timeframe.