2016 (12) TMI 314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment for the year 2012-13 was completed by the first respondent and an order was passed on 22.5.2015. The issue pertains to non submission of C-Forms and disallowance of exemption on the aspect of export sale. On 19.8.2015, the petitioner produced C-Forms, as a result of which, the Assessing Officer - the first respondent herein modified the assessment proceedings by an order dated 15.10.2015. While doing so, the first respondent accepted the C-Forms. However, he declined to revise the assessment on the aspect of export sales. 3. In fact, the order dated 15.10.2015 modifying the assessment order dated 22.5.2015 was passed on an application made by the petitioner under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. As against t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the impugned order, it is seen that the Appellate Authority, after extracting the grounds of appeal, has devoted more than 4 to 5 paragraphs of the order commenting upon the action initiated by the Assessing Officer in the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. In my view, this was uncalled for, since the appeal is by the dealer and not by the revenue. Therefore, all that the Appellate Authority should have seen in the appeal petition is as to whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to interfere with the rectified assessment order, only with regard to the points which have been held against the petitioner. 6. In other words, what can be seen by the Appellate Authority is with regard to the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se on hand and while deciding the question relating to the maintainability, the Hon'ble Division Bench has held as follows: '6. As far as the first issue on the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, in the decision reported in 39 STC 260 State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Crompton Engg. Co., this Court held that there is a clear and a real distinction between an order allowing an application for rectification and thereby rectifying or modifying the original order of assessment and an order rejecting an application for rectification. When the rectification proceedings resulted in a positive action, which has the effect of destroying the finality of original assessment, thereby reopening the assessment order itself, then the provi....