Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (11) TMI 928

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tax<br>T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.B.Raveendran For the Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annadurai ORDER These Writ Petitions, which were initially filed before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, as Original Petitions have been transferred to the file of this Court, and re-numbered as Writ Petition Nos.1374 to 1377 of 2006. 2. Heard Mr. B. Raveendran, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... orders under Section 55 of TNGST Act. Therefore, the first Revisional Authority, viz., the second respondent and the second Revisional Authority, viz., the first respondent both concurrently held that the Revision Petitions are not maintainable. 5. I am unable to agree with the stand taken in the impugned orders, in the light of the fact that, the Section 55 of the TNGST Act provides for a rem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner is entitled to question the orders passed by the third respondent, dated 20.02.2003, by way of Revision Petition, hence, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent, rejecting the Revision Petitions as not maintainable are incorrect. Consequently, the orders passed by the first respondent are also incorrect. Further, at the relevant point of time, assessments for the years 1994-95 to....