Rectification requests under VAT law need reasoned consideration of revised returns, supporting records, and natural justice before rejection.

A rectification request under the Tamil Nadu VAT framework should not be rejected mechanically where the alleged defects in statutory forms and sales return claims are capable of correction and the record contains revised returns and supporting documents. The text states that the authority must examine the explanation, the corrected forms, and the documentary material before deciding, and must act consistently with natural justice by giving a personal hearing where required. It further notes that an unsupported rejection is unsustainable and that the matter should be reconsidered on merits by the assessing authority on a fresh, de novo basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the rectification petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was justified and whether the assessment matter required fresh consideration by the assessing authority.

Analysis: The notice had identified defects relating to statutory forms and the claim for sales return, and the petitioner had sought rectification with revised returns and supporting documents. The impugned rejection was made without adequate reasons and without properly examining the revised return, the corrected forms, and the documentary material. The defects were capable of correction and the rectification request could not be rejected without considering the explanation and granting an opportunity.

Conclusion: The refusal to rectify was not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the assessing authority for fresh disposal on merits after considering the documents and affording personal hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The rectification proceedings were reopened for de novo consideration by the assessing authority, with the petitioner required to produce the revised return and supporting records.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification request cannot be rejected mechanically where the alleged defects are capable of correction and the record requires consideration of revised returns and supporting materials, especially when the authority must act consistently with natural justice.

---