Rectification jurisdiction requires reasoned scrutiny of apparent record errors; non-speaking rejection was set aside and reconsideration directed.

A rectification application under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was rejected by a non-speaking order, raising the issue whether the authority had properly exercised its power to examine an apparent error on the record. The court held that such jurisdiction must be applied with a reasoned consideration of the alleged mistake, and that a bare rejection without proper examination is not sustainable in judicial review. The rejection was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a direction to reconsider the application within the time fixed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for rectification under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was sustainable and whether the matter required reconsideration.

Analysis: The rectification request was rejected by a non-speaking order. The challenge was confined to whether the authority had properly exercised the rectification jurisdiction and considered the alleged error apparent on the face of the record. On judicial review, the Court found that the jurisdiction under Section 66 had not been properly exercised and that the rectification request required proper examination in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the first respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief on the rectification challenge, and the authority was directed to reconsider the application and pass orders within the time fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification application cannot be rejected by a non-speaking order where the authority has not properly exercised the statutory power to examine an apparent error on the record; such failure justifies interference in judicial review and remand for fresh consideration.

---