TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciding this issue. The petitioner in this Writ Petition being a Partnership Firm, is a dealer in Paper and Board, and is an assessee on the file of the first respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act. The first respondent had passed assessment order for the assessment year 1995-1996. An appeal was filed before the second respondent. The second respondent, by order dated 22.04.2009, after having set aside the assessment order, had remanded the matter back to the first respondent for re-consideration and re- assessment. While remanding the matter back to the first respondent for re- consideration, the second respondent has given specific directions to the first respondent to re-assess the issue by ascertaining the following, as indicated in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Form declaration issued to the appellants/seller correctly tallied with that of the counterfoil available with the purchasers, who has paid tax, has simply proceed to pass the present impugned order dated 30.11.2009. 4. In the said impugned order, the first respondent has given the following reasons for passing the impugned order which reads thus: "Further, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Virudhunagar has also set aside the levy of penalty of Rs. 801074.00 stating that the turnover was very much available in the books of accounts and the revision of assessment is only a re-assessment of the turnover, which was originally granted exemption and will fullness is not established." Therefore, challenging the said impugned order pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'C' Forms so far. Therefore, he had proceeded with passing the impugned orders of re- assessment. The way in which the impugned orders were passed is totally against the mandatory directions given by the appellate authority in the order of remand, which have not been followed by the first respondent. Therefore, for that ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon a judgment of this Court made in a batch of cases in W.P.(MD)Nos.2807 of 2006, etc., batch, by order dated 17.09.2009 in the matter of Tvl.Uma Paper Mart vs. Commercial Tax Officer-I (FAC), Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District and another. In the said judgment, the learned Judge, after having co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e would not ipso facto make the petitioners entitled to claim the benefit of setting aside the order and escape from the clutches of taxation. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further contend that in the said batch of cases, orders were passed on 17.09.2009. The issue was that the 'C' Forms said to have been given by the officials concerned of the Department were forged one. Therefore, since the Department officials themselves issued forged 'C' Forms, this Court had come to the rescue of the petitioners and thereby, setting aside the orders of re-assessment and directed the Department to take action against the erring officials. However, the facts are slightly different in the present case, where the Assessing....