Rectification applications must be decided on actual merits, and a cryptic rejection on a mistaken premise can be quashed.

A rectification application under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 must be considered on its actual merits after affording the assessee a personal hearing. A rejection based on the mistaken assumption that the original invoice was not available, without addressing the assessee's stated position that the invoice had been traced and could be produced, reflects non-application of mind. The impugned communication was therefore quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the rectification request with permission to produce the original invoice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned communication rejecting the assessee's application under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was unsustainable for non-consideration of the request on merits and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The assessee stated that the original invoice had been traced subsequently and was available for production, and had sought rectification and a personal hearing under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The communication impugned before the Court proceeded on the footing that the assessee merely presumed production of the invoice earlier, and rejected the request for absence of the original invoice. That reasoning did not address the actual request made in the application and reflected a failure to consider the matter in the correct perspective. The Court held that an application under Section 84 must be decided on whether rectification is warranted, after affording an opportunity of hearing, and not by a cryptic rejection based on a mistaken premise.

Conclusion: The impugned communication was quashed and the matter was remitted for reconsideration of the rectification application after granting personal hearing and permitting production of the original invoice.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief against the rejection order, and the dispute was sent back to the revenue authority for a fresh decision on the rectification request.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification application seeking consideration of newly produced or traced documentary material must be decided on its actual merits after hearing the assessee, and a rejection based on a mistaken or non-speaking premise is liable to be quashed for non-application of mind.

---