2000 (12) TMI 888

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., has placed the records before us and has argued the question. On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. N. Inbarajan has argued the case. The facts of the cases are as follows:   The petitioners are a public limited company and they are dealers in electrical goods. From the year 1994, they had a lighting division at Kodambakkam, Chennai. According to them, they had decided to wind up the lighting division and have the same merged with the consumer care division at Madurai. Therefore, they were not properly attending to the returns for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97. In fact, the lighting division is said to have been closed with effect from January 24, 1997. For the said two assessment years, the petitioners did not produce the account ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble, because they were not an effective order under section 14 of the TNGST Act. For this purpose, he relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Crompton Engineering Company (Madras) Limited [1977] 39 STC 260, rendered under section 55 of the TNGST Act. It is under these circumstances that the above six original petitions have been filed, three relating to the year 1995-96 and three relating to the year 1996-97. In respect of both the assessment years, the petitioners challenge the orders of assessment dated May 18, 1999, the orders of the second respondent dated August 29, 2000 and August 31, 2000 and the orders of the third respondent dated September 20, 2000.   3.. The first and foremost argument of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessing authority to find out whether the failure to submit a return or submission of an incorrect or incomplete return, was due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, where an application is dismissed on the ground of limitation or on merits, the effect is the same, namely, that the assessee is denied the opportunity of having the order of assessment cancelled and having a fresh assessment. Such a consequence is certainly greatly prejudicial to the assessee and this is precisely the reason why an appeal against this order is provided for under section 31 of the TNGST Act, 1959. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the order dated September 20, 2000 made by the third respondent is liable to be set aside for bo....