Rectification orders must address specific errors raised; cryptic refusals can be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

Rectification under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act requires the authority to apply its mind to the specific errors raised and, at least briefly, explain how those objections are dealt with. Orders of extreme brevity that do not address the assessee's complaints do not reflect proper consideration of the rectification request and may be set aside. The matter may then be remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after giving the affected party an opportunity of hearing and to produce additional material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification orders passed under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were liable to be set aside for non-consideration of the errors pointed out and the matter remitted for fresh decision.

Analysis: The rectification provision requires the authority to apply its mind to the specific errors complained of and to indicate, at least in brief, how those objections are dealt with. Orders of extreme brevity that do not refer to the alleged errors raised by the assessee fail to reflect proper consideration of the request for rectification. In such circumstances, the ends of justice and the object of the rectification provision are not served by sustaining the orders.

Conclusion: The rectification orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and to produce additional material.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded and the authority was directed to reconsider the rectification requests afresh after hearing the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An order rejecting rectification must show due consideration of the errors raised; a cryptic order that does not address those objections can be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

---