Speaking order required in rectification proceedings; non-speaking rejection of tax error claim was set aside and remanded.

Under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, a rectification authority must deal with a prima facie apparent error and give reasons when rejecting the request; a bare, non-speaking refusal does not show application of mind. The Madras HC found that the impugned order failed to address the dealer's objections on exempted purchase turnover and sale of assets. The rejection of the rectification application was therefore unsustainable, was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and passing a speaking order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the rectification application under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, by a non-speaking order was sustainable, and whether the matter required fresh consideration.

Analysis: Section 84 confers power on the assessing, appellate or revisional authority to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record within the prescribed period. Where the dealer points out a prima facie apparent error, the authority must indicate why it is not so; a bare rejection without reasons does not adequately reflect application of mind. The impugned order contained no reasons and did not deal with the specific objections raised regarding inclusion of exempted purchase turnover and the sale of assets.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification application was unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration and for passing a speaking order after hearing the petitioner.

---