TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has the right of appeal before the appellate forum. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to represent the appeal before the second respondent, within a period of 10 days - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 38853 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Prasad For Respondents : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, AGP ORDER Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rectified order dated 15.10.2015. 5. The issue would be as to whether the second respondent was justified in refusing to entertain the appeal petition on the sole ground that the petitioner is aggrieved by a rectified order of assessment. This issue was considered by this Court in the earlier writ petition in the case of M/s.Artis Leathers, Erode Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Periya Agraharam Circle [W.P.No.25433 of 2016 dated 17.8.2016]. The facts of the said case are identical to that of the case of the petitioner herein. 6. While considering the legal issue as to whether the Appellate Authority can entertain an appeal against a revised order, in the order dated 17.8.2016, this Court held as follows : 5. On perusal of the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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'ble Division Bench of this Court made in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Sabarigiri Industries reported in [2013] 58 VST 454 (Mad). Among other issues which were considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the first issue which was taken for consideration was regards the maintainability of the appeal. The facts of the said case also was more or less identical to the case on hand and while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der 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-Section (4) of Section 55 does not confer a right on an applicant who successfully seeks rectification, to file appeal or revision against the order declining to rectify. If the authority which made the original order is of the view that there are in fact no errors in the order which need to be rectified, or can be rectified under Section 55 of the Act, no further proceedings can be taken by applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
