2021 (4) TMI 1279 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court clarifies recourse after rectification under KVAT Act for 2016-17 assessment year

The High Court dismissed the petition seeking rectification under Section 66 of the KVAT Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The Court held that once a ... Validity of assessment order - ex-parte order - levy of tax on unaccounted purchases - rectification application - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the petitioner had preferred rectification application under Section 66 of the KVAT Act after issuance of the assessment order under Section 25 of the KVAT Act for the year 2016-17. The rectified assessment order has already been passed which is at Ext.P4. Dissatisifed with the said rectified assessment order, petitioner has again preferred further application which is at Ext.P5. The endorsement on that application makes it clear that the same has received by the authority on 26.03.2021. Within few days, the petitioner has approached this Court and the learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to decide the application at Ext.P5 in a time bound manner. Once the rectification application has been disposed of and the rectified assessment order is passed, the remedy, if any, which can be available to the petitioner is that of challenging the rectified assessment order in a statutory appeal. He cannot go on by filing rectification applications again and again - Petition dismissed. Issues: Rectification application under Section 66 of the KVAT Act for assessment year 2016-17Analysis:The petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) for the assessment year 2016-17 after an ex parte order was passed by the 1st respondent, levying tax on unaccounted purchases and denying IPT credit. The petitioner initially filed an application for rectification at Ext.P3, which was disposed of with an order at Ext.P4 directing correction of arithmetical errors. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another rectification application at Ext.P5 against the order at Ext.P4, seeking further rectification. The petitioner's grievance was that the application at Ext.P5 was not being considered by the respondents, and sought a direction for its disposal. However, the learned Government Pleader argued that once a rectified assessment order has been passed, the petitioner cannot keep filing rectification applications repeatedly and should instead opt for a statutory appeal.The High Court observed that the rectification application under Section 66 of the KVAT Act had been disposed of, and a rectified assessment order had been issued at Ext.P4. Despite this, the petitioner filed another rectification application at Ext.P5, which was received by the authority on 26.03.2021. The Court noted that the petitioner, dissatisfied with the rectified assessment order, sought further rectification through Ext.P5. The Court emphasized that once a rectification application has been dealt with and a rectified assessment order issued, the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging the order through a statutory appeal, rather than filing repeated rectification applications. The Court highlighted that the petitioner was free to approach the respondents for a decision on the application at Ext.P5, but declined to direct a time-bound disposal as the application was recently submitted. The judgment concluded by dismissing the petition, stating it lacked merit and advising the petitioner to challenge the rectified assessment order through a statutory appeal.