2016 (12) TMI 1021

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The order impugned in this Writ Petition is an order passed by the first respondent, the appellate authority rejecting the petitioner's appeal petition, as not maintainable.  The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.08.2016, by which, the error  occurred in the assessment order was rectified by the assessing officer.  Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent. 3. The respondent would state that the first respondent has rejected the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that as against the revised order, appeal cannot be entertained. This issue was earlier considered by this Court in Tvl.Artis Leathers Vs. The Assistant Commissioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 passed against the petitioner is a modified order or rectified order passed pursuant to the exercise of powers under  Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. 8. In the light of the said fact, the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority that the appeal is not entertainable is incorrect. I am supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made in the case of State of Tamil Nad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 correct any alleged errors has the effect of leaving the original order intact. It is only when rectification is ordered, and as consequence, one of the parties is aggrieved by such modification, a remedy is required to be provided. For that purpose Section 55(4) of the Act has been introduced. That new sub-section (4) of Section 55 does not confer a right on an applicant who succ....