TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner's Right to Appeal Upheld under TNVAT Act</h1> <h3>S. Sengodan Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), The State Tax Officer, Town Circle, Attur.</h3> S. Sengodan Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), The State Tax Officer, Town Circle, Attur. - TMI Issues:- Justification of the office of the 1st respondent in returning the appeal filed by the petitioner against the rectification order dated 29.04.2021 under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the memo dated 06.08.2021, which returned the appeal against the rectification order dated 29.04.2021. The petitioner had earlier filed for rectification of assessment orders for the years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015, which was disposed of on 29.04.2021. The office of the 1st respondent returned the appeal as time-barred, stating that the original assessment order had merged with the rectification order.The court referred to Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, allowing rectification of mistakes in orders passed by various authorities. It also discussed the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 and Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding review of judgments. The court emphasized that an order under review vacates the original judgment, as highlighted in the Sushil Kumar Sen case.Further, the court cited the Kunhayammed case, explaining that the review does not vacate the decree until the review application is allowed. The court clarified that if an application for review is dismissed, the party can still file an appeal against the original judgment. The court also mentioned Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing exclusion of time taken in pursuing a review petition if pursued bona fide.The judgment emphasized that if the original order stands substituted by another order under Section 84, the appellate remedy cannot be disallowed. The petitioner was entitled to file an appeal against the original order of assessment. The court concluded that the return of the appeal by the 1st respondent was not justified, and the impugned communications were quashed. The 1st respondent was directed to number the appeal and proceed with the final hearing within three months.In summary, the court held that the petitioner had the right to file an appeal against the order dated 29.04.2021, and the office of the 1st respondent's decision to return the appeal was not sustainable. The judgment allowed the writ petitions, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeals promptly within three months.
TaxTMI 