TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows writ petition challenging TNVAT rectification order for lack of personal hearing. Respondent to issue new orders.</h1> The court allowed the writ petition challenging a rectification order under the TNVAT Act, 2006, as it was issued without affording a personal hearing to ... Application for rectification of the order - Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has filed the rectification application under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 on 01.10.2021. The respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned rectification order on 12.10.2021 without calling upon the petitioner to furnish the documents even after no personal hearing was granted by the respondent. The respondent should have called upon the petitioner to file the documents and thereafter passed appropriate orders for rectification of the order. This Writ Petition is allowed by directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Issues:Challenge to rectification order under TNVAT Act, 2006 without personal hearing.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the rectification order dated 12.10.2021 under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, alleging it was passed without affording a personal hearing. The petitioner argued that the order was made without proper application of mind and contrary to established legal principles cited in previous court decisions. The petitioner contended that if there were doubts about tax payment, a personal hearing should have been granted. However, the respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, argued that personal hearing is not mandatory unless there is a proposal to enhance tax liability, as per the proviso to Section 84(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The respondent further stated that there was no apparent error in the record and the petitioner had an alternate remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, making the writ petition liable for dismissal.In response, the petitioner's counsel argued that the proviso to Section 84(1) applies only when the respondent seeks to enhance tax liability, not when an assessee files an application for rectification. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that the respondent should have provided an opportunity for submission of documents. After hearing both sides, the court examined the impugned order and Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The court noted that the rectification order was issued without calling for necessary documents or granting a personal hearing to the petitioner, as required. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to issue appropriate orders within thirty days, with the petitioner instructed to submit all documents within fifteen days. The court emphasized that the order should be made after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were imposed, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
