TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 690
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ron and steel and an assessee on the file of the third respondent. For the assessment year 1997-98 the appellant-assessee filed return reporting total and taxable turnover of Rs. 17,95,64,901 and Rs. 4,72,07,862, respectively, under the Central Sales Tax Act. On the basis of the return, assessment order was passed on March 24, 2002 arriving at the taxable turnover as follows: 1. Inter-State sales covered by C form : Rs. 11,46,763 at 4 % 2. Consignment sales not covered by form F : Rs. 88,25,714 at 8 % 3. Stock transfer to Bangalore branch not by form F : Rs. 3,72,35,862 at 8 % Rs. 4,72,07,862 After framing of the assessment, as aforesaid, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....August 6, 2002 confirmed the order of the first appellate authority. The assessee, not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, filed writ petition before this court. The learned single judge, by reason of the order impugned in this writ appeal, dismissed the writ petition. The correctness of the same is now assailed before us. Mr. Sundareswaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that all the authorities below and the learned judge have totally erred in coming to the conclusion that the order dated May 31, 2000 is not an appealable order. Once the original order of assessment is revised, the earlier order passed automatically merges with the subsequent order. Hence, the subsequent order can only be regarded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly granted by accepting the form F produced by the appellant. Thus, the order rectifying the earlier order dated March 24, 2000 is only the rectification order granting the relief as sought for by the assessee. In respect of the rest of the turnover, no dispute was raised by the assessee. The contention of the learned counsel that the order passed under section 55 of the Act granting the relief is an appealable order is not acceptable. Section 55 of the Act read as follows: "55. Power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. - (1) An assessing authority or an appellate or revising authority (including the Appellate Tribunal) may, at any time within five years from the date of any order passed by it, rectify any err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stated, the appellant cannot have any grievance about the order dated May 31, 2000 which granted the relief as sought for by it. In respect of the consignment sales turnover, no relief has been sought for by filing necessary declaration form as required under the TNGST Act. Clause (4) of section 55 of the TNGST Act could be taken in aid only when an adverse order is passed in an application taken out under section 55, which is subject to the revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner under section 33 of the TNGST Act, which gives a revisional remedy against an order or proceedings recorded under the Act for which an appeal has not been provided for in section 31 or section 31A of the TNGST Act. The appealability of an order can ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s provisions as an appealable one. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of Kundan Lal Srikishan v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1987] 65 STC 62 to contend that because of the order dated May 31, 2000 revising the earlier assessment order dated March 24, 2000, the earlier assessment order dated March 24, 2000 has got re-opened and did not have an independent existence thereafter and the only order available is the order dated May 31, 2000 and that order is an appealable order. We are not able to approve the contention of the appellant's counsel that the decision of the Supreme Court in Kundan Lal's case [1987] 65 STC 62 supports the case of the appellant. That was a case in which the appellant-assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l order of assessment got reopened and thereafter any order under section 21 alone would be the order of assessment..." Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is the pari materia provision to section 16 of the TNGST Act, which provides for reopening of the assessment on the ground of escapement of turnover. If the original order dated March 24, 2000 was subjected to revision under section 16, then, the order passed under section 16 would alone be the order of assessment on the principle of merger. In the case on hand, the original order dated April 23, 2000 had never been re-opened under section 16 on the ground of escapement of turnover for assessment. Hence, the cited judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is pertinen....