Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ court was right in setting aside the rejection of the rectification application under Section 84 and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Analysis: The assessment orders and the rectification orders were interlinked, as the dealer had sought correction of alleged apparent errors in the inclusion of purchase turnover and the treatment of sale of assets. The refusal to rectify was found to be non-speaking, and the writ court directed the assessing authority to reconsider the application, afford personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order on the identified issues. In appeal, no ground was made out to disturb that course, since the authority was only required to examine whether an error apparent on the face of the record existed.
Conclusion: The remand ordered by the writ court was upheld and no interference was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed, and the matter remained open before the assessing authority for fresh decision on the rectification request.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a rectification request under the relevant tax statute is rejected by a non-speaking order, the authority must give reasons and can be directed to reconsider the application by passing a speaking order on whether an error apparent on the face of the record exists.