Reasoned rectification and revisional orders are required where turnover errors and interest objections are specifically raised.

Rectification under the Tamil Nadu VAT law cannot be rejected solely for delay or by a bare assertion that no apparent mistake exists where the dealer alleges a factual discrepancy in taxable turnover; the authority must examine the material and give reasons. Revisional orders sustaining interest also require a reasoned response to the factual and legal objections raised, and a cryptic or non-speaking order is not sustainable. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remitted for fresh consideration with an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the rejection of rectification applications under section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, merely on the ground of delay, without examining the alleged factual discrepancy in taxable turnover, was sustainable; (ii) whether the revisional orders confirming levy of interest under section 42 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, were sustainable when they did not deal with the factual and legal objections raised by the dealer.

Issue (i): whether the rejection of rectification applications under section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, merely on the ground of delay, without examining the alleged factual discrepancy in taxable turnover, was sustainable.

Analysis: The power under section 84 is to be exercised in accordance with law and cannot be rejected by a bare statement that there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record, particularly when the dealer specifically points out discrepancies in the sales figures and taxable turnover reflected in the assessment records. Where a factual error is alleged, the authority must examine the material and, if it disagrees, record reasons for rejecting the claim. The impugned rectification orders did not undertake that exercise.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification applications was not sustainable and was liable to be interfered with.

Issue (ii): whether the revisional orders confirming levy of interest under section 42 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, were sustainable when they did not deal with the factual and legal objections raised by the dealer.

Analysis: The revisional authority disposed of the revisions ex parte but still gave only brief reasons, without dealing with the factual matrix or the challenge based on the legal position governing levy of interest. An order that fails to consider the contentions and supporting material, and does not disclose proper reasons, is a non-speaking order and cannot be sustained on merits.

Conclusion: The orders relating to levy of interest were unsustainable and were liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration, with conditional interim protection and opportunity to the dealer to be heard again before the revisional authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification or revisional order must reflect application of mind to the specific factual and legal objections raised, and a bare or cryptic rejection without reasons cannot stand.

---