TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 The petitioner is a dealer in tyres being distributors/retailers for prominent Tyre Companies like "Michelin", "Appollo" etc. and an assessee on the files of the respondent-Assistant Commissioner (CT), Sankari, Salem District. For the assessment year 2009-10, the petitioner had duly reported a total and taxable turnover by way of monthly returns filed in Form I and the same is deemed to have been accepted and originally assessed in terms of Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and the output tax due was adjusted from the ITC. 3.2 According to the petitioner, on 16.05.2014, the respondent has passed the assessment order. Pointing out certain errors apparent on the face of the record in the assessment order, the petitioner moved an applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner and rejected the petition as not entertainable vide proceedings dated 09.10.2015. 3.5 That apart, according to the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has filed SLP, the respondent has got power under Section 84(4) of the Act, to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner and there is no bar to dispose of the same in accordance with law, which fact, was lost sight of while passing the above said order. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the rejection order passed by the respondent is highly arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the incentive schemes extended to the customers do not form part of sale consideration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, as against the assessment order, a writ petition was filed before this Court, which was disposed of infavour of the Revenue. As against the said order, a Special Leave Petition was filed and the same is pending. In the meantime, pointing out certain errors apparent on the face of the record, the petitioner moved an application under Section 84 of the Act. Without passing any order on merits, the same was rejected by the impugned order. Section 84 of the TNVAT Act empowers the authority to rectify any error apparent on the face of the reco....