https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336047 Under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, a rectification authority must deal with a prima facie apparent error and give reasons when rejecting the request; a bare, non-speaking refusal does not show application of mind. The Madras HC found that the impugned order failed to address the dealer's objections on exempted purchase turnover and sale of assets. The rejection of the rectification application was therefore unsustainable, was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and passing a speaking order. en-us Wed, 09 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336047 Under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, a rectification authority must deal with a prima facie apparent error and give reasons when rejecting the request; a bare, non-speaking refusal does not show application of mind. The Madras HC found that the impugned order failed to address the dealer's objections on exempted purchase turnover and sale of assets. The rejection of the rectification application was therefore unsustainable, was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and passing a speaking order. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 09 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336047