9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 22.12.2014 (passed by the first respondent) and the order dated 18.06.2015 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal (b) direct the first respondent to return the amount of Rs. 33,61,000/- and (c) to release the Bank Guarantee furnished for Rs. 33,61,000/-. Brief Facts: 3. The appellant is engaged in the business of trading of steel coils and manufacturing of automative parts. The appellant is registered under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act1956. The appellant awarded two contracts to M/s. Fujita Corporation for Rs. 32.01 and Rs. 1.60 crores respectively. Thereafter, M/s. Fujita Corporation applied for the grant of two certificates in "Form S" towards non deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the dispute cannot be the subject matter of appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT ACT, 2006 and hence the appeal is not maintainable. 6.1. The first respondent passed an order of assessment dated 22.12.2014. This order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Claiming that the said order is a non speaking order, the assessment order dated 22.12.2014 came to be challenged in the writ petition. 7. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed the second respondent to return the appeal papers to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the petitioner was permitted to file a revision petition. 8. It is the grievance of the learned counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal (b) complying with the conditional order of stay. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to find out whether the appeal was dismissed (a) on account of technical reasons (b) on account of lack of jurisdiction or (c) on account of lack of merits. If the appeal had been dismissed on the merits of the matter, then the appellant mayor may not be entitled to ask for return of the deposited amount depending upon the context under which he was asked to deposit the amount. But, when the appeal is dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction whether the appellate authority as well as the writ Court is justified in not ordering return of the amount is the issue canvassed in this appeal. In order to appreciate this contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw. Therefore, the second respondent should have ordered the return of amount which was already paid by the appellant herein. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the learned single judge ought to have specifically directed the second respondent to return the amount is correct and it has to be accepted. 15. In the result, the writ appeal is partly allowed. The order passed in Writ petition to the extent to which relief is not granted is fulfilled and the ungranted relief of return of the amount to the extent of Rs. 33,61,000/- is ordered. 16. It is represented that the second respondent has already returned the papers to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks two weeks time to prefer the revision petition. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
