SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
VAT - Whether consequential order passed by Appellate Authority in Stay Petition is non-est in eye of law, when Appellate Authority holds that there is no jurisdiction to adjudicate issues raised? - Yes, rules High Court

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)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.

TOP NEWS


AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST