TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore, there are no reason for the Assessee to to file further Appeal against such Rectification Order in his own favour. It is difficult to understand what prevented the Assessee from assailing the Original Assessment Order dated 31.3.1995 itself. The submission made by the learned counsel for the Assessee that the Original Assessment Order stood merged with the Rectification Order is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. It is only if the Appellate Order is passed on the merits of the case, then the Original Assessment Order can merge with the Appellate Order and not in a case like this where the Rectification Order is passed at the instance of the Assessee itself and as requested by it. In the absence of any challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht in upholding the order of the first appellate authority dismissing the first appeal filed by the petitioner herein as not maintainable when the first appeal had been numbered and heard on merits? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in overlooking the fact that as per Sec.55(4) of the TNGST Act, an appeal would lie against an order passed u/s.55 of the Act? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not considering the fact that in respect of the very same transaction, tax under the CST Act, 1956, had been paid in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the levy under the TNGST Act, 1959, would amount to double taxation? 3. The le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 102 STC 613), to dismiss the appeal. Considering the facts of this case, we could find that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order only to rectify the mistake pointed out by the dealers. This revision for rectification does not assessed any escaped turnover for tax, to call it as revision under section 16 of TNGST Act, 1959, for which alone appeal stands before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT). Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its order in W.P.No.11008 11009 of 2004 dated 17.02.2011, has remanded the issues to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, wherein the disputed assessment orders were revisions made under section 16 of TNGST Act, 1959, not the one passed under section 55 of TNGST Act, 1959 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19.03.96 (Assessment File Page-599) on the request of the dealers. No where it was stated that the dealers objected the turnovers. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the plea of the appellants narrated in the grounds as well as the averments putforth through arguments. As we find no reason to interfere in the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), we confirm the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT). 5. The learned counsel for the Assessee Mr.C.Subramanian fairly submitted that the Assessment for the Assessment Year 1993-94 in question was completed by the Assessing Authority on 31.3.1995 and against the inter-State Sales made by the Assessee, tax was paid under the CST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the Original Assessment order does not merge with the Rectification Order passed by the Assessing Authority. In the present case, the Rectification as prayed by the Assessee only was allowed by the Assessing Authority himself and therefore, we do not find any reason for the Assessee to to file further Appeal against such Rectification Order in his own favour. 8. We fail to understand what prevented the Assessee from assailing the Original Assessment Order dated 31.3.1995 itself. The submission made by the learned counsel for the Assessee that the Original Assessment Order stood merged with the Rectification Order is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 9. It is only if the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
