Statutory rectification must be decided on merits; an advisory to file appeal cannot replace Section 84 procedure.

Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act requires a rectification application to be examined on merits by the authority empowered to correct errors apparent on the record. An assessing authority cannot bypass that statutory mechanism by merely advising the assessee to file a regular appeal against the revised assessment order. Where the impugned proceeding is only such an advisory notice, a revision challenging it cannot be rejected on the premise that an appeal lies against the assessment order. The Madras HC set aside the notice and the revisional order and remitted the matter for fresh decision on the rectification request under Section 84.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's request for rectification under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 had to be considered and decided on merits by the assessing authority, and whether the advisory notice directing the assessee to file an appeal was sustainable; (ii) Whether the revisional authority was justified in dismissing the revision against such notice and in refusing to examine the matter on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's request for rectification under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 had to be considered and decided on merits by the assessing authority, and whether the advisory notice directing the assessee to file an appeal was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 84 confers power on the assessing, appellate, and revising authorities to rectify an error apparent on the face of the record within the prescribed period. A request invoking that provision has to be dealt with under that statutory mechanism. The assessing authority, instead of disposing of the rectification request, issued a notice advising the assessee to prefer a regular appeal against the revised assessment order. That course did not amount to a lawful disposal of the Section 84 application and was contrary to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The advisory notice was unsustainable, and the assessee's Section 84 request had to be considered on merits by the assessing authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional authority was justified in dismissing the revision against such notice and in refusing to examine the matter on merits.

Analysis: The revision was filed because the authority below had not adjudicated the rectification request and had only issued an advisory notice. In that situation, the revisional authority's refusal to entertain the challenge on the ground that an appeal alone lay against the revised assessment order did not address the real controversy. Since the order impugned in revision was the notice issued in response to the Section 84 request, the dismissal of the revision could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The revisional authority's dismissal of the revision was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notice and revisional order were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the assessing authority to decide the rectification application under Section 84 afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory rectification application must be disposed of under the provision under which it is made, and an authority cannot bypass that procedure by issuing a mere advisory to pursue an appeal.

---