Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid letter may be placed on record, and accordingly, the same is placed on record.

4. In terms of the above letter, there is nothing to show that the Appeal has been preferred as against the order passed in the Tax Case Revisions.

5. Facts of the case, which are necessary to be taken note of, are that, the assessment orders were passed by the second respondent, for the relevant years on 30.03.2007 and 22.11.2007, wherein, tax liability of the petitioner was enhanced and penalty was levied. This was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, who dismissed the Appeal, by order, dated 12.06.2008. This order was put to challenge by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by way of filing Tax Appeals Nos.165 of 2005, 225, 226, 177 and 178 of 2008, 164 of 2010. The Tribunal, by its common order, dated 30.04.2014, allowed the petitioner's Appeals in part, in respect of T.A.Nos.177 and 178 of 2005, and upheld the contention of the petitioner, and struck down the Department's classification of certain products of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal on the limited scope, sofar as it relates to the classification of the petitioner's multi function network printers, by filing Tax Case Revisions before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, which were taken on file in T.C.R.Nos.94 to 96 of 2014. The Hon'ble Division Bench, by a common order, dated 10.12.2014, allowed the Tax Case Revisions, and the operative portion of the order reads as follows:-