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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application for rectification under Section 54(1) of the M.P. VAT Act can be rejected without issuing notice and granting an opportunity of hearing to the dealer.
Analysis: The rectification provision permits correction of clerical, arithmetical or similar errors on application by the dealer or suo motu, and the prescribed procedure requires notice in the prescribed form. The Court held that, where a dealer himself invokes the rectification remedy, the statutory scheme must be read consistently with the principles of natural justice. Relying on the analogous rectification provision under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the settled principle that an adverse order by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority ordinarily cannot be passed behind the back of the affected party, the Court held that an opportunity of hearing is required before rejecting a rectification application.
Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification applications without notice and hearing was unsustainable and had to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matters were sent back for fresh consideration after notice and hearing, with all other questions on maintainability and merits left open.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides a remedy of rectification at the instance of the affected party, the requirement of notice and hearing before deciding that application adversely is implied by the principles of natural justice unless the statute clearly excludes it.