TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent had proceeded further and to pass assessment order dated 10.07.2015. In the said order, the provision has been wrongly quoted as Section 25(1) instead of Section 22(4) even that has also been rectified, ofcourse pursuant to the application submitted in this regard by the petitioner dated 19.01.2016, by the respondent through the order dated 10.03.2016 passed under Section 84 of the Act - Therefore, if at all the petitioner still has got any grievance over the orders passed by the respondent both on 10.07.2015 and 10.03.2016, against both orders, the petitioner can either file an appeal under Section 51 of the Act or revision under Section 54 of the Act respectively, if he is advised to do so. Petition dismissed. - W.P.(MD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner, the respondent, as if that the petitioner had not filed any return, had proceeded to make an assessment wrongly under Section 25(1) of the Act, whereby, an order has been passed on 10.07.2015, where the respondent has imposed penalty under Section 25 besides the tax due demanded. As against the said order, dated 10.07.2015, since the petitioner felt that the said order was passed apparently on the basis of mistake of facts or error apparent on the face of the records, he had filed a petition to rectify it, by invoking Section 84 of the Act on 19.01.2016. Considering the said application of the petitioner dated 19.01.2016 under Section 84 of the Act, the respondent had passed a revised order on 10.03.2016, which is nothing but a rect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent has not stated as to the return submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent ought not to have passed this order either under Section 25(1) or under Section 22(4) of the Act, because those provisions cannot be invoked for the case like this where the petitioner/dealer has submitted the annual return under Rule 7(7) in time and the same has been accepted and acknowledged by the respondent, and the present impugned orders ought not to have been passed and therefore, on that point, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside those orders. 7. However, on the contrary Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that, in fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso has been rectified. Hence, both the impugned orders, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, are tenable and acceptable, therefore, they do not require any interference from this Court, he contended. 9. I have heard the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 10 . It is a definite case of the petitioner that a return has been filed for the concerned assessment year for which acknowledgement from the respondent also had been filed before this Court. The dispute now is whether the return filed by the petitioner is a monthly return or yearly return. But it is a case of the petitioner that it is an yearly return, because t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
