2017 (9) TMI 1169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssing the appeals filed by the petitioner in AP Nos.CST 18/2017 and CST/19/2017, on the ground that the appeals are not maintainable. 3.The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the stay petition was listed for hearing before the appellate authority and when the petitioner was of the view that the appellate authority will consider the stay petition, they were shocked to receive the impugned orders rejecting the appeals. The second contention is that the observation made by the second respondent in the impugned orders that no appeal lies against the order passed under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 is not tenable. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....08.2016, set aside the impugned order thereon and directed the authority to hear the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. 6.At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the operative portion of the order in P.C.W.Castings Private Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Nandambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai and another (supra), which reads thus: "5.The issue would be as to whether the second respondent was justified in refusing to entertain the appeal petition on the sole ground that the petitioner is aggrieved by a rectified order of assessment. This issue was considered by this Court in the earlier writ petition in the case of M/s.Artis Leathers, Erode Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Periya Agraharam Circle [W.P.No.25433....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 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 T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 Vs. 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 successfu....