Rectification under VAT law requires hearing and reasons when specifically sought before rejection of the application.

Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act permits rectification of errors apparent on the record, but it does not exclude a hearing where the assessee specifically requests one. A rectification application that expressly seeks personal hearing cannot be rejected without affording that opportunity, and the order must also disclose reasons showing consideration of the grounds raised. On those facts, the High Court held the rejection order unsustainable, set it aside, and remitted the rectification application for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the rectification application under section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act without granting an opportunity of hearing and without a reasoned order was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 66 confers power to rectify an error apparent on the face of the record, but it does not exclude a hearing to the assessee when such hearing is specifically sought. The rectification application contained an express request for personal hearing, yet the order rejecting it was passed without affording such opportunity. The order also did not contain reasons adequate to show consideration of the grounds raised.

Conclusion: The rejection order was not sustainable and was set aside. The rectification application was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

---