2017 (10) TMI 1019 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court nullifies orders, orders reevaluation by respondent in compliance with law. No costs awarded.

The Court allowed the writ petitions, nullified the previous orders, and instructed a reevaluation by the respondent in compliance with the law and the ... Rectification of error - rejection on the ground that the petitions do not involved any error apparent on the face of the record - TNVAT Act - Held that: - the tax paid by them has been realised by the respondent on 20.01.2014. For the assessment year 2014-2015, though the petitioner has requested for copies of the import documents, the respondent has not furnished the same and has rejected the petition filed under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act stating that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The power conferred on the respondent under Section 84(1) of the Act is a power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. The statute does not state that such power can be exercised only to correct arithmetical or clerical errors. The language employed in Section 84 of the Act would confer power on the authority to review its decision, if there is error apparent on the face of the record. The respondent should have passed a speaking order as to why he was convinced that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. It is not enough to refer to Section 84 and state that there is no error apparent on the face of the record - matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to rejection of applications under Section 84 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2014-2015.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged orders rejecting applications under Section 84 of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. The petitioner, engaged in importing heavy melting scrap, contended that the assessment orders were based on erroneous data sourced from the Customs Department, alleging import purchases totaling a specific amount. The petitioner disputed these claims, asserting they only made two imports during the relevant period and paid taxes accordingly. Despite the petitioner's requests for import documents to verify the assessment, the respondent rejected the petitions citing no apparent errors on record.In response, the respondent acknowledged the tax remittance by the petitioner for sales in March 2013 but highlighted a discrepancy in the filing date of the manual return. The petitioner argued that the tax payment was received by the respondent in January 2014, emphasizing compliance with tax obligations. For the assessment year 2014-2015, the petitioner's request for import documents went unanswered by the respondent, who maintained the absence of any errors in the assessment records.The Court noted that Section 84(1) of the Act empowers authorities to rectify errors on record, not limited to arithmetic or clerical mistakes. It emphasized the need for authorities to provide detailed justifications for rejecting applications under this section, especially when challenged by taxpayers. Critically, the Court highlighted the lack of a personal hearing granted to the petitioner, which could have clarified discrepancies in the assessment process. Consequently, the Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, ruling to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a thorough review based on legal principles outlined in the judgment.In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petitions, nullified the previous orders, and instructed a reevaluation by the respondent in compliance with the law and the principles elucidated in the judgment. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, concluding the legal proceedings on this matter.