TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 10.03.2017 cannot be allowed to stand - the respondent is directed to consider the issues raised in the rectification petitions filed by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.A. Nos. 479 to 482 of 2017, W.M.P. Nos. 7220 to 7226 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2017 - R. Mahadevan And M. Govindaraj, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.B. Raveendran For Respondent : Mr.A. Kanmani Annamalai ORDER ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Mahadevan, J. ) These writ appeals are directed against the order dated 03.02.2017 passed in W.P. Nos. 2595 to 2598 of 2017. 2. The facts that led to the filing of the writ petitions are : The appellant/petitioner is a dealer in motor cars and is registered on the files of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, the assessment orders dated 22.12.2016 came to be passed, assailing which W.P.Nos. 2595 to 2598 of 2017 came to be filed and by order dated 03.02.2017, while granting leave to the appellant/petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of TNVAT Act, 2006, in respect of defect Nos. 1 and 10, stayed the recovery of tax imposed for each of the assessment years concerning these defects, however, on the request made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitioner, permitted that the appellant/petitioner can include other issues with regard to other defects pointed out as well, in the rectification petition to be filed under Section 84 and accordingly, disposed of the writ petitions with the above directions. It is thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. However, before the receipt of the certified copy of the order, recovery proceedings were initiated and recovery notice dated 27.02.2017 was issued by the respondent. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P. No. 5649 of 2017 and this Court, by order dated 03.03.2017, permitted the appellant to file the petition under Section 84 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, within a period of one week from that date, and the respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the same and the recovery notice, impugned therein, was ordered to be kept in abeyance, till orders are passed in the rectification petition. Thereafter, the appellant filed rectification petitions dated 08.03.2017 wherein the appellant placed all the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defects as well. Such an understanding of the order of this Court by the respondent could only be termed as improper. At the same time, the intimation letter of the respondent dated 10.03.2017 cannot be allowed to stand. Hence, the petitioner could have very well challenged the said intimation letter dated 10.03.2017 instead of filing the Writ Appeal, challenging the order dated 03.02.2017 in W.P.Nos.2595 to 2598 of 2017, which, in our considered view, does not require any interference. 6. However, considering the fact that the intimation letter of the respondent dated 10.03.2017 cannot have the legs to stand, the respondent is directed to consider the issues raised in the rectification petitions filed by the appellant, on merits, in acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
