GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 449 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (2) TMI 449 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Question of Refund of amount deposited during pendency of appeal as per the direction and when appeal was dismissed as not maintainable - TNVAT - Held that:- When the second respondent held that there is no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issues raised, then the consequential orders passed are also without jurisdiction and it is a nullity. It is settled law that any order passed without jurisdiction is non-est in the eye of law. Therefore, the secon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of ₹ 33,61,000/- is ordered. - WA No. 1651 of 2015, MP No. 1 of 2015 - Dated:- 11-1-2016 - M. Jaichandren And S. Vimala, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Joseph Prabakar For the Respondent : Mr S Kanmani Annamalai JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. Vimala, J) This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24425 of 2015 dated 12.10.2015. 2. The Writ Petition was filed seeking writ of certiorarified Mandamus (a) to call for th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act1956. The appellant awarded two contracts to M/s. Fujita Corporation for ₹ 32.01 and ₹ 1.60 crores respectively. Thereafter, M/s. Fujita Corporation applied for the grant of two certificates in "Form S" towards non deduction of TDS on the value of contracts for ₹ 32.01 and ₹ 1.60 crores respectively, obtained the same and produced before the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant did not deduct TDS on t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

NVAT Act 2006, the appellant paid an amount of ₹ 16,80,500/- representing 25% of the disputed tax amount. By the order, dated 26.03.2015, the second respondent, while passing the order of stay directed the appellant to pay further amount of ₹ 16,80,500/- being 25% of the disputed tax amount. The Appellate Authority further directed the appellant to furnish the Bank Guarantee for the remaining 50% of the disputed tax amount amounting to ₹ 33,61,000/-. The appellant complied with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

irst respondent i.e. Assessment order dated 22.12.2014. 9. It is the contention of the respondents that the writ appeal it selfis not maintainable as the appellant cannot have any grievance against the order allowing the Writ Petition. 10. No doubt the writ petition has been allowed; but the question is whether it is allowed in toto or in piece meal is the issue. A perusal of the order reveals that out of several relief claimed only part of the relief has been granted and the remaining relief is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dered return of the amount which was paid at the time of (a) filing of the appeal (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 dependi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt that the proceedings under Sections 22, 24, 26, 27, 28,29,34 and 40(2) alone are appeal able under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and the challenge regarding wrong deduction of TDS and the deduction of TDS under Section 13 of the TNVAT Act 2006 cannot form part of the assessment under Section 27 of the Act and therefore the appeal is not entertain able. The decision was not on the merits of the subject matter but on the entertainability of the subject matter itself. This finding is clearly .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version