TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 [TNVAT Act] and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [CST Act]. The Appellate Authority returned the petitioner's Appeal Petition dated 12.07.2016, as not entertainable, because the petitioner has filed the same against the rectified order passed by the Assessing Officer/ second respondent dated 03.08.2016. 3. The undisputed facts are that the order of assessment was passed for the assessment year 2014-15 under CST Act dated 31.05.2016. The issue which arose in the Assessment proceedings was whether the petitioner was entitled to concessional rate of tax, in the absence of appropriate Declaration Forms. The petitioner preferred an Appeal to the first res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S LEATHERS v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) AND ANR [W.P.No.25433 of 2016 dt 17.08.2016]. In the said case also the Appellate Authority refused to entertain the Appeal on the ground that it was passed as against the rectified order under section 84 of the TNVAT Act. While allowing the Writ Petition and directing the Appeal to be taken on file, this Court passed following order: "7.Secondly, it has to be seen as to whether the second respondent was justified in rejecting the appeal as not entertainable. This conclusion of the second respondent is incorrect, since the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act stood merged with the order of assessment dated 30.12.2014. Thus, in effect, the order of assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when the Assessing Officer refuses to interfere with the original order and that order is allowed to remain intact, the said order would not be amenable normally to appeal remedy. In so holding, this Court referred to the provisions under Section 55(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, inserted by Amendment Act No. 31 of 1972, providing for appeal and revision remedy when an order of rectification is made, and not when the authority concerned refuses to pass an order of rectification. 7. Similar view was also taken in the decision of this Court reported in 114 STC 359 STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. SPEEDLINE AGENCIES. This Court, in paragraph 5 of the judgment, pointed out as follows:- "Any order made by an authority declining to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs." 6.Thus, the proper interpretation that should be given to the case on hand is that the order rectifying the original assessment order should stand merged with the original assessment order dated 31.05.2016 and the Appeal is maintainable against the said revised order on account of merger. Thus, the impugned memo issued by the second respondent is not sustainable in law. The other issue would be as to whether the remittance of 25% of the disputed tax was within the time permissible. 8. Admittedly, on the date of presenting the Appeal on 12.07.2016, 25% of the disputed tax was not paid. However, within a short period, i.e subsequent to the Assess....