2016 (8) TMI 1334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is identical in nature, and the parties are one and the same, they have been taken up together, and disposed of by this common order, even at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Salem, in respect of the Appeals filed by them against the orders of assessment passed by the first respondent, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, dated 01.12.2014. 4. It may not be necessary to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the manner, in which, assessment was completed by the first respondent, since the petitioner had challenged the same before the second responde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onfirm the assessment. It is further submitted that, had the second respondent dismissed the petitioner's Appeals, then, the petitioner could have preferred Second Appeals before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 7. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and perusing the materials placed on record, it is evidently clear that the second respondent has committed error while passing the impugned orders. If the Appellate Authority is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration, then, he ought to have rendered findings to the said effect, and then remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer, to redo the assessment in accordance with law. However, in the instant cases, the Appellate Authority has re....