TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's rectification petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act could be rejected on the ground that the alleged mistake was not a mere clerical or arithmetical error, and whether the assessment order disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration.
Analysis: Section 84 confers power on the assessing, appellate, and revisional authorities to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. The provision is not confined only to clerical or arithmetical mistakes. The rectification request was founded on documents already in existence and relied upon in support of the petitioner's stand that the disputed sale related to its Head Office at Hyderabad and not the Chennai Division. The assessment order rejected the petitioner's claim on a ground not put in the pre-revision notice and on the basis that certain supporting documents were not produced, although those documents had not been called for earlier. In these circumstances, the impugned refusal to invoke Section 84 rested on an incorrect understanding of the scope of the provision and the assessment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record.
Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in showing that the rectification jurisdiction under Section 84 ought to have been exercised, and the refusal to consider the petition on that basis was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for reconsideration after affording an opportunity of hearing and examining the documents produced with the rectification petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to rectify an error apparent on the face of the record is not confined to obvious clerical or arithmetical mistakes and may extend to correcting an assessment based on a ground not put to the assessee and not supported by the record.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
