The court's decision emphasized the importance of filing an appeal against the respondent's orders within the specified period, without making observations on the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, to set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.3972 of 2019.)

S. Vaidyanathan, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3972 of 2019.

2. By the impugned order dated 23.06.2022, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant by giving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal against the orders of the respondent which had been challenged in the Writ Petition, within a period of two weeks from the date of the order (i.e. 23.06.2022).

3. In the said Writ Petition, the appellant had challenged the impugned proceedings of the respondent in:-

i. TNGST 2960520/2002-03 dated 27.11.2018 for the assessment year 2002-03 with demand notices in Form B3 and Form 54 both dated 27.11.2018 all under the same Assessment No.2960520/2003- 04,

ii. TNGST 2960520/2003-04 dated 28-11-2018 for the assessment year 2003-04 with demand notices in Form- B3 Form- U and Form-54 all of them dated 28-11-2018 all under Assessment No.2960520/2003-04 and

iii. TNGST 2960520/2004-05 dated 28.11.2018 for the Assessment year 2004-05 with demand notices in Form B3 Form- u and Form 54 all of them dated 28.11.2018 all under Assessment No. 2960520/2004-05.

4. The specific case of the appellant appears to be that the issue has been answered in favour of the appellant by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore by its order dated 27.06.2002 in Coimbatore Tribunal State Appeal Nos.537 & 533 of 2001, wherein, the appeals filed by the respondent State against the orders dated 19.07.2000 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Erode in Appeal Nos.334/2000 (94-95) and 335/2000 (95-96) relating to the Assessment Years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, were dismissed.

5. It is submitted that the respondent State has filed an appeal before this Court in T.C.No.122 of 2018 against the above order dated 27.06.2002 of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore in C.T.S.A.Nos.537 & 533 of 2001 and it is pending before this Court and therefore, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of this Court is liable to be set aside and the orders of the respondent which had been challenged in the Writ Petition are also liable to be quashed.

6. This Writ Appeal is opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Tax) stating that the issue is now stands covered against the appellant in terms of the following two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court:-

i. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Tvl. Geetha Dyeing and others, dated 01.07.20211 in TC(R).Nos.842 of 2006 etc. batch, and

ii. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Salem Division, Salem Vs. Tvl. Manjula Textile Processors (P) Ltd., dated 13.02.2020 in Tax Case No.29 of 2020.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the respondent.

8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant had merely asked for adjournment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition by giving liberty to the appellant to workout the remedy. However, we are of the view that there are no merits in the present Writ Appeal.

9. Also, we do not wish to make any observations in this order on the merits of the case as to whether the issue is now covered by above two decisions cited by the learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the respondent or whether the issue has already been answered in favour of the appellant by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore vide its order dated 27.06.2002 of in C.T.S.A.Nos.537 & 533 of 2001 confirming the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Erode, dated 19.07.2000 in Appeal Nos.334/2000 (94-95) and 335/2