9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nian For the Respondents : Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri Government Advocate (T) ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings of the third respondent dated 15.10.2018. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner suffered an order of assessment dated 19.08.2018 at the hands of the third respondent, wherein and whereby the Assessing Authority imposed tax and penalty on the petitioner. The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner was referred to the third respondent once again, who in turn considered the very same once again is an application under Section 84 of the Act and rejected the same by the impugned order dated 15.10.2018. The only grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that even though the petitioner has filed appeal before the wrong officer, the same should have been forwarded to the Appellate Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appeal papers were presented before the wrong forum. Therefore, I find some force in the contention of the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner-Sales Tax, Thirukuzhukundram either should have returned the papers to the petitioner for presenting the same before the appropriate forum or forward the same to the concerned authority for deciding it on merits instead he has forwarded the pap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty for deciding the same on merits. Therefore, it is contended that the Assistant Commissioner has erred in forwarding the papers to the third respondent and considered the same once again as an application under Section 84. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
