DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Vs. CAMEO EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue involved in all these appeals is one and the same, the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IN all these cases, the assessees, against the orders of assessment, have filed the appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) under Sec. 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter, for the brevity sake, referred to as 'the Act') and the appellate authority returned the appeal papers since appeals did not accompany the proof of payment of 25% of the disputed tax as per proviso 2 to Sec. 31 of the amended act 19 of 2002, with effect from 3-6-2 002. Challenging the orders passed by the appellate authority, assessees have filed the present writ petitions.

(3.) IN W. P. Nos. 22347, 26083 and 27441 of 2003, the learned single Judge (K. Govindarajan, J.), following the decision in the case of arasu RUBBER CORPORATION LTD. v. Addl. D. C. T. O. (Mad.), reported in 200 2 vol. 126 STC 32, allowed the writ petitions and directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeals without insisting upon the pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax. While so, in the other batch of writ petitions, i. e. W. P. Nos. 36661 to 36666 of 2004, the learned single Judge (K. Raviraja pandian, J.), holding that the issue is covered by the decisions in the case of H. K. DADA (INDA) LTD. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (4 STC 114) and vitthalbhai NARANBHAI PATEL v. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (12 STC 219), dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, the present writ appeals at the instance of the Revenue as well as the assessees.