Rectification petitions under VAT law must be heard on merits where factual and arithmetic errors are raised, with personal hearing.

Rectification under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could not be rejected on a technical reference to the appellate remedy under Section 51(1) where the request concerned factual reconciliation and arithmetic errors. The Madras HC treated the petition according to its substance, held that the assessee was entitled to place its case before the authority, and found that a cursory rejection was hyper-technical. The authority was directed to afford a personal hearing and decide the rectification petition on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's petition for rectification under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was liable to be entertained and decided after affording a personal hearing, and whether the rejection of that petition on the footing of Section 51(1) was justified.

Analysis: The assessee had participated in the assessment process and sought time for a professional reason. The rectification request was treated as a petition under Section 84 notwithstanding its caption. Section 84 enables correction of errors in assessment, and in a case involving factual reconciliation and arithmetic details, the assessee is entitled to place its case before the authority. A cursory rejection by referring to appellate remedy under Section 51(1) was held to be hyper-technical. The authority was therefore directed to hear the assessee personally and dispose of the rectification petition in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The rectification petition was required to be heard and decided on merits after personal hearing, and the rejection of that petition was set aside.

---