TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, by which, Writ Court partly allowed the writ petitions, by setting aside the orders, dated 24.12.2013, rejecting the appellant's application, under Section 84 of the Act and the matters were remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration and while reconsidering the appellant's application for rectification of error, dated 13.12.2013, the respondent should afford an opportunity of personal hearing and after considering the matter in its entirety, pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law, on the two issues, which have been pointed out by the appellant, viz., with regard to the error in inclusion of the purchase turnover, which has been exempted and with regard to the sale of assets. 2. Short facts leading to filing of the appeals, are as follows: The appellants are hoteliers, engaged in the business of supply of food and drinks to customers and registered dealer, on the file of the respondent, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (In short TNVATAct ). For the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the appellants filed returns and after verifying the same, show cause notices have been issued. Thereafter, on 29.1.2013, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the figures under Assets Deletion in the fixed assets schedule to the Balance Sheet pertains to cost of asset sold in the books of accounts and not the sale value. Copies of records were furnished at the time of hearing. According to them, while completing the assessment, the assessing officer has brushed aside the records and erroneously rendered a finding that these are the income earned by the dealer in the course of hotel business. 7. Therefore, the main case of the appellant before the writ Court was that since the finding rendered by the Assessing Officer on the above two issues, was an error apparent, on the face of the record, they have filed applications, under Section 84 of the Act, for rectification of the mistake. However, the respondent, vide orders, dated 24.12.2013, has rejected the applications, under Section 84 of the Act, by an non-speaking order, stating that the assessment has been completed on the basis of the details available in the returns and also the additional details furnished in the objections filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the appellants have sought to quash the findings of the Assessing Officer, on these two issues, by setting aside the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Writ Court, the present appeal has been filed, on the following grounds, (1) The Writ Court erred in setting aside the order dated 24.12.13 of the respondent which is the order rejecting the application for rectification, when the order impugned in the writ petition was the assessment order dated 29.11.13 only and not the order dated 24.12.13. (2) Writ petitions were filed challenging the assessment order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, absence of jurisdiction and ultra vires the powers of the respondent, insofar as the said order levied purchase tax once again under section 12 of the TNVAT ACT and also levied tax on the turnover relating to amenities and other collections which had suffered service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, and not the order dated 24.12.13 rejecting the application for rectification, and hence, the order of the writ Court requires reconsideration. (3) The appellant had paid purchase tax under section 12 along with the monthly returns and the explanation was also accepted by the respondent while passing the assessment order and hence the respondent was not justified in levying purchase tax on the said turnov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side the assessment order dated 29.11.13 has rendered the appellant without any remedy in so far as the turnovers disputed in the writ petitions are concerned. 11. Though the challenge in the writ petitions, pertains to assessment orders, dated 29.11.2013, for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively, the fact remains that the appellant has filed rectification petitions, under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and orders have been passed on such rectification petition, by the assessing authority on 24.12.2013, in which event, the assessment orders, for the abovesaid years, dated 29.11.2013, would merge with the rectification orders, dated 24.12.2013. 12. When orders on the rectification petitions have been passed on 24.12.2013, it is not known, as to why, the appellant has not chosen to challenge the rectification orders, dated 24.12.2013, in the writ petitions, filed on 13.02.2017. At this juncture, it is also relevant to extract Paragraph 9 from the affidavit filed to W.P.Nos.2290 and 2291 of 2014, as follows: 9. I state that after receipt of the impugned order, the petitioners had filed a petition for rectification under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, requesting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
