2018 (1) TMI 1196

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 Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal with the consent on either side. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the common order passed by the first respondent-the Appellate Assistant Commissioner [CT], exercising power under the provisions of Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 [in short PVAT Act ] and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [in short CST Act ]. The appeals have been filed by the petitioner against the Assessment Orders passed for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 both under the PVAT Act and the CST Act. Therefore, these four appeals were filed before the first respondent. 4. The petitioner appears to have raised various contentions in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, as regards the rate of tax levied by the Assessing Of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in 2004 Vol. 134 STC 526, wherein, the Division Bench, while dismissing a writ petition filed by the dealer challenging a Clarification held that Clarification can be assailed in the appeal as well as before the assessing officer on the basis of proper evidence, if the assessee so feels. No compulsion and binding nature on the assessing authority is found in the provisions of Section 28A(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Assessing Authority would certainly be bound only by the appellate order. It is not necessary for the Court to go into the question of correctness of the clarification issued and that would depend on the evidence which would be lead by the assessee before the concerned authorities. 9. The Tamil ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act also provides for Clarification and Advance Ruling under Section 49-A, which also contains similar provisions as contained in Sub-Section (4) of Section 77 of PVAT Act, except that there is no provision in paramateria under Section 77(3) of PVAT Act. Therefore, this Court has to interpret what would be intent and purport of the legislation, namely Section 77(3) of the PVAT Act. The Assessing Officer would seek to rely upon Sub-section (3) of Section 77 to state that he cannot decide any issue in respect of which an application has been made by an applicant under the said Section and is pending. 11. The crucial words to be interpreted are "an application" and "an applicant" occurring in sub-section (3) of Section 77 of PVAT Act.....