TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Secretary of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal could return the rectification application on the ground that it did not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record, or whether that question had to be decided by the Tribunal.
Analysis: The rectification application related to an order passed under the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, though it had been filed under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The competence to decide whether the application disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record lay with the Tribunal itself, not with the Secretary. By returning the application on a merits-based ground, the Secretary assumed a quasi-judicial function that he did not possess. The proper course was to place the papers before the Tribunal for consideration.
Conclusion: The return endorsement was unsustainable and was set aside. The petitioner was permitted to re-present the rectification application under the correct provision, and the Tribunal was directed to consider it on merits in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: The preliminary determination of whether a rectification petition discloses an error apparent on the face of the record is a judicial function that must be exercised by the Tribunal and not by its administrative office.
TaxTMI 
