Rectification for apparent errors must be reconsidered when assessment orders contain patent factual or arithmetic mistakes.

Rectification under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 must be assessed on whether the alleged mistake is an error apparent on the face of the record. Patent factual or arithmetical errors in assessment orders, including wrong figures taken from the balance sheet and an added zero in the sale value of plant and machinery, could not be rejected without proper consideration. The rejection orders were found to show non-application of mind to the errors pointed out. The rejection of the rectification applications was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, with consequential protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the rectification applications under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 was sustainable when the assessment orders were shown to contain errors apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: For entertaining rectification, the authority had to examine whether the mistake was an obvious error apparent from the record. The material placed before the Court showed prima facie mistakes in the assessment orders for multiple years, including wrong figures being adopted from the balance sheet and an additional zero being added to the sale value of plant and machinery. These mistakes were patent and did not require any elaborate investigation. The rejection orders also reflected non-application of mind to the errors pointed out in the applications.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification applications was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The rectification applications were required to be reconsidered afresh by the authority after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and the assessee was entitled to consequential protection.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification application must be considered on whether the alleged mistake is an error apparent on the face of the record, and a patent factual or arithmetical error in the assessment cannot be rejected without proper consideration.

---