SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Jio turns world’s top telco in terms of data trafficIndia takes part in 'Institutionalization of SMART Government for Improving Service Delivery' in LondonGadkari faints during campaign; Heat takes toll on his health'Sunflowers were the first ones to know' - film by FTII student selected at CannesSARFAESI Act - Award of interest on auction money at rate applicable to fixed deposits is not a correct view and rate of interest deserves to be enhanced: SC (See 'TIOLCorplaws')ST - Chit Funds - Tax was not paid under mistake of law but upon demand by tax authorities - Refund not having been filed within time was rightly rejected: HCSC asks EC to submit more info on reliability of EVMsGST - Without considering reply on merits, proper officer has held that reply is unsatisfactory and, therefore, he is left with no alternative but to create demand - Order set aside: HCGST - Cancellation of registration retrospectively - Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are bereft of any details, accordingly the same cannot be sustained: HCGST - Registration could not have been cancelled retrospectively for the period for which returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCGST - Notfn 11/2017-CTR amended by 03/2022 - Work contracts executed before 18 July 2022 - Petitioners should file refund claims before respondent agitating grievance and same be examined and orders passed within 4 months: HCItaly imposes USD 10 mn fine on Amazon for unfair business practicesGST - Entire tax liability has been realised by appropriating the amount from the petitioner's bank account, therefore, Revenue interest stands fully secured - Since tax proposal was confirmed without participation of petitioner, order set aside and matter remanded: HCCaste Census is my mission, says RahulRight to Sleep - A Legal lullabyUS warns Pak of punitive sanctions against trade deal with IranI-T- Income surrendered before approaching Settlement Commission not covered u/s 115BBE, where this provision did not exist during relevant AYs: HCChinese companies decry anti-subsidy probe by EUI-T- Entire interest expenditure is allowable as deduction if loan funds is not diverted for non-income earning activities/personal purposes : ITATUK to send military aid package worth USD 619 mn to UkraineUS regulator bans non-compete agreements by employeesAir India, Nippon Airways join hands for travel between India and JapanSC grills Baba Ramdev & Balkrishna in misleading ad case
 
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 N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST