Reasoned rectification orders are mandatory under VAT law; a cryptic rejection was quashed for lack of application of mind.

A rectification rejection under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was found unsustainable because the order was cryptic and gave no reasons. The authority merely stated that the defect did not fall within Section 66 and that no error apparent on the face of the record existed, without addressing the grounds raised or showing proper consideration. The absence of a reasoned analysis indicated lack of application of mind, so the order was quashed. Fresh consideration was directed after hearing the petitioner, and connected stay and recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance until then.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification order rejecting the application under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was sustainable when it was cryptic and did not disclose reasons.

Analysis: The assessment was made under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The rectification application was rejected by a brief order stating only that the alleged defect did not fall within Section 66 and that no error apparent on the face of the record existed. The order did not disclose any discussion of the grounds raised or any reasoning showing proper consideration of the request. In the absence of a reasoned analysis, the decision reflected lack of proper application of mind and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The rectification order was held unsustainable and was quashed. Fresh consideration was directed after hearing the petitioner, and the connected stay proceedings and recovery steps were directed to remain in abeyance until then.

---