Second appeal maintainability under VAT law depends on whether the first appellate order truly set aside the assessment for fresh consideration.

The third proviso to Section 58(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 bars second appeals only where the first appellate authority sets aside the assessment and directs a fresh assessment. Although the first appellate order used remand-like language, it in substance decided the merits, confirmed the assessment on the main issues, and left only one limited aspect for further disposal. As the assessment was not set aside for a fresh assessment of the whole matter, the statutory embargo did not apply. The second appeals were therefore maintainable, and the Tribunal erred in refusing to entertain them.

---

---

Issues: Whether the third proviso to Section 58(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 barred the second appeals when the first appellate order, though using remand language, had decided the merits and had not set aside the assessment for a fresh assessment.

Analysis: The statutory embargo in the third proviso applies only where the Appellate Deputy Commissioner or the Appellate Joint Commissioner sets aside the assessment and directs the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment. The first appellate order in substance dealt with the merits, confirmed the assessment on the main issues, and left only one limited aspect for further disposal. Since the assessment was not set aside and there was no direction for a fresh assessment of the whole matter, the proviso could not be invoked to reject the second appeals as not maintainable.

Conclusion: The second appeals were maintainable and the Tribunal erred in refusing to entertain them. The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner.

---