Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1291 (MAD)

B. K. AND K. CHEMICALS (P. ) LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ADYAR II ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI.

2009-04-20

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

body2009
ORDER V. Ramasubramanian J. - The petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions challenging two orders of the respondent, one passed under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and another passed under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the assessment year 2004-05. Heard Mr. M. Desingu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R. Mahadevan, learned Additional Government Pleader (T), takes notice for the respondent. Though the petitioner is aggrieved by an order of assessment dated January 25, 2008, which is appealable, his real grievance appears to be that his applications for revision filed under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, have also been rejected without any consideration on merits, by orders dated January 12, 2009. Thereafter, the respondent has also proceeded to issue B6 notices for attachment. The respondent has rejected the application under section 55 for a revision on the ground that the revision under both the Acts is not permissible. Such a view has been taken on the ground that the assessing authority has no power to change the rate of tax. But the respondent has lost sight of the fact that the prayer of the petitioner is not actually for change of the rate of tax. The prayer of the petitioner was that the product was an adhesive and not a lubricant. On this issue, certainly the respondent has power to consider the revision under section 55 and pass orders one way or the other. Therefore, de hors the prayer made by the petitioner, both the writ petitions are disposed of setting aside the orders dated January 12, 2009 passed on revision and remitting the applications under section 55 back to the respondent for a fresh consideration. The respondent shall consider the revision petition of the petitioner in accordance with law and dispose of the same on merits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the revision petitions are disposed of, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps for recovery. No costs. Consequently M.P. Nos. 1 and 1 of 2009 are closed.