By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, FEB 12, 2016: APPELLANT awarded contracts for works and Contractor produced Certificate for non-deduction of TDS. Assessing Authority contended that certificate issued to contractor was invalid and passed assessment order without hearing the Appellant directing Appellant to pay TDS.

Aggrieved, appellant preferred appeal and stay application before Appellate Authority under Section 51 of the TANVAT Act 2006, after paying 25% of the disputed tax. Appellate Authority passed Order in stay petition directing the appellant to pay a further amount of 25% and to furnish Bank Guarantee for the remaining 50% of the disputed tax. Appellant duly complied with the conditions.

Thereafter, appellate authority dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that TDS under Section 13 of TNVAT Act, 2006 cannot be the subject matter of appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT ACT, 2006.

Appellant then filed Writ Petition challenging assessment Order stating that the said Order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In Writ Petition, Single Judge directed the Appellant to file revision petition against the assessment order.

Appellant filed Writ Appeal on the ground that the single Judge should have directed refund of the amount paid by the Appellant upon filing appeal and upon complying with stay order and that the writ Court should have set aside Assessment order.

In Writ Appeal, the Court held that out of several reliefs claimed by the Appellant, only part of the relief has been granted by the Single Judge. The Court observed that when Appellate Authority held that there is no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised, then the consequential order passed in Stay Petition is without jurisdiction, nullity and non-est in the eye of law. Therefore, the Court held that the Appellate Authority should have ordered the return of amount already paid by the appellant. The Court thus ordered refund of Rs.33,61,000/- to the appellant within a period of four weeks and directed the Appellant to file revision petition within two weeks.

(See 2016-TIOL-250-HC-MAD-VAT)