https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169025 Rectification under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 must be assessed on whether the alleged mistake is an error apparent on the face of the record. Patent factual or arithmetical errors in assessment orders, including wrong figures taken from the balance sheet and an added zero in the sale value of plant and machinery, could not be rejected without proper consideration. The rejection orders were found to show non-application of mind to the errors pointed out. The rejection of the rectification applications was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, with consequential protection. en-us Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2015 21:06:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169025 Rectification under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 must be assessed on whether the alleged mistake is an error apparent on the face of the record. Patent factual or arithmetical errors in assessment orders, including wrong figures taken from the balance sheet and an added zero in the sale value of plant and machinery, could not be rejected without proper consideration. The rejection orders were found to show non-application of mind to the errors pointed out. The rejection of the rectification applications was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, with consequential protection. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169025