9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 and further directed the petitioner to take the application of the first respondent on file and proceed further in accordance with law. The facts culminating in filing of this writ petition are as follows: The first respondent was the assessee and doing business in aluminium clamps and warps. For the assessment year 1995-96 the assessing officer passed a revised order levying tax at eight per cent on the sale of aluminium clamps and warps sold to Electricity Board with a liability of tax of Rs. 7,841, surcharge Rs. 1,776 and penalty at Rs. 11,271. The first respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Madurai (North) in AP. No. 33 of 2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty is correct. The Special Tribunal went in a wrong tangent and granted the relief. He further contended that as the first respondent-assessee has succeeded before the first appellate authority there is no liability to any tax component or penalty and as such, the first respondent cannot be regarded as an aggrieved person. In the absence of any tax liability on the part of the first respondentassessee the assessee cannot maintain an application under the provisions of the "2002 Act" for settlement of disputes. Hence, the order of the designated authority in non-suiting the assessee for settlement of disputes is correct. The order of the Special Tribunal is against the very scheme of the Act. However, learned counsel for the first respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002, pre-requisite for filing an application under section 5 of the Act is that as against the assessment order passed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the appeal or revision should have been filed on or before February 28, 2002 before any appellate authority or revisional authority, as the case may be, and it should be pending before the authority on or before the date of making the application under section 5 of the 2002 Act. The terminology "appeal or revision" used in that provision did not distinguish the appeal or revision filed by the assessee as against the appeal or revision file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
