Tax authority must process Section 84 rectification petition for assessment errors and refunds within three months

Madras HC directed the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on petitioner's representation filed under Section 84 of TNVAT Act, 2006 regarding rectification of errors in tax assessment and refund orders. The court held that respondent cannot refuse to process the petition filed on 24.08.2021 with subsequent reminders. HC granted three months from receipt of order to decide the representation and refund any available amount to petitioner, without prejudice to respondent's appeal rights. Petition allowed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rectification of error in the order dated 18.03.2021
2. Refund of excess taxes paid by the petitioner
3. Compliance with the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
4. Consideration of representation/petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006
5. Finality of the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
6. Compliance by the respondent with the court orders

Analysis:

1. The Writ Petition was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to rectify an error in the order dated 18.03.2021 related to TIN 33524901264/2011-12. The petitioner requested the issuance of a refund voucher for excess taxes paid, as per Rule 14(18) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, along with interest at 6% per annum under Section 42(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

2. The petitioner had previously faced an adverse order from the respondent, resulting in the reversal of input tax credit. However, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC), who allowed the appeal in part on 16.11.2017, concerning the reversal of input tax credit on the manufacture of exempted goods.

3. Despite the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order, the respondent only granted relief for a lesser amount, leading to the petitioner filing a representation under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The court noted the respondent's failure to comply fully with the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order, emphasizing the need for adherence to judicial decisions.

4. The court highlighted the respondent's obligation to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation/petition, directing a refund of any available amount within a specified timeframe. This direction was issued without prejudice to the respondent's rights in the pending appeal before the court.

5. The court emphasized the finality of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order and noted the dismissal of the respondent's further appeal. It deemed the respondent's deviation from the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order as a violation, citing relevant legal precedents.

6. The judgment concluded by allowing the Writ Petition with a directive for the respondent to act on the petitioner's representation within three months, ensuring the refund of any eligible amount. The order was made with the liberty for the respondent to pursue the pending appeal without prejudice.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the petitioner's request for rectification, refund, compliance with previous orders, and the finality of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's decision.

---