TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - the exercise adopted by the second respondent was uncalled for. Maintainability - whether the second respondent was justified in rejecting the appeal as not entertainable? - Held that: - the decision in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Versus Sabarigiri Industries [2014 (3) TMI 193 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has been relied upon. The order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act stood merged with the order of assessment dated 10.02.2015. Thus, in effect, the order of assessment passed against the petitioner is a modified order or rectified order passed pursuant to the exercise of powers under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act - appeal entertain-able. Appeal restored - writ petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18.2.2015 and 23.2.2015, requesting for rectification of certain mistakes which have crept in the order of assessment. These petitions were presented under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. Several issues were pointed out in the said petitions, which were considered by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 26.2.2016 . 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would admit that except the issues with regard to ITC reversal on purchases from RC cancelled dealers to the tune of ₹ 1,43,708.00, invisible loss to the tune of ₹ 4,45,524.00 and cash discount of ₹ 58,418.00, all other issues which were brough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opted by the second respondent was uncalled for. 7. Secondly, it has to be seen as to whether the second respondent was justified in rejecting the appeal as not entertainable. This conclusion of the second respondent is incorrect, since the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act stood merged with the order of assessment dated 10.02.2015. Thus, in effect, the order of assessment passed against the petitioner is a modified order or rectified order passed pursuant to the exercise of powers under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. 8. In the light of the said fact, the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority that the appeal is not entertainable is incorrect. I am supported by the decision of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act No. 31 of 1972, providing for appeal and revision remedy when an order of rectification is made, and not when the authority concerned refuses to pass an order of rectification. 7. Similar view was also taken in the decision of this Court reported in 114 STC 359 STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. SPEEDLINE AGENCIES. This Court, in paragraph 5 of the judgment, pointed out as follows:- Any order made by an authority declining to correct any alleged errors has the effect of leaving the original order intact. It is only when rectification is ordered, and as consequence, one of the parties is aggrieved by such modification, a remedy is required to be provided. For that purpose Section 55(4) of the Act has been introduced. That new sub-secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
