2017 (9) TMI 1306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the file of the respondent/The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Kotturpuram Assessment Circle. The petitioner seeks for a direction upon the respondent to modify the orders of refund dated 23.11.2015 and the orders of rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for rectification dated 25.11.2016 and consequently to sanction refund of the value of 'Capital Goods' in terms of Section 18(1) of the TNVAT Act and the refund pertaining to wastage and to pass other appropriate orders. 4. The petitioner filed refund claims before the respondent on various dates for the relevant assessment years, the respondent vide separate orders dated 23.11.2015 accepted the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ght of the decision of this Court in Interfit Techno Products Ltd., Vs. PS/CCT and another in WP.No.13901 of 2013 etc., batch dated 26.11.2014 reported in 2015(81) VST 389 (Mad). On receipt of the applications filed under Section 84 of the Act, it appears that though specifically, the petitioner sought for an opportunity of personal hearing, it is not been granted. The respondent, by the impugned orders dated 25.11.2016 rejected the petitions merely on the ground that there is no valid reason to re-open the refund claim under Section 84 of the Act. 6. In my considered view, the reason assigned by the respondent in the orders dated 25.11.2016 for rejecting the applications filed under Section 84 of the Act is incorrect. Admittedly, in the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter inviting objections proceed in accordance with law" 7. If the above decision is applied to the facts of the case then this Court would have no option except to hold that adoption of uniform percentage of wastage is incorrect. When the respondent has not assigned reasons for disallowing part of refund claim while passing order dated 23.11.2015, it is sufficient to hold that the order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and necessarily rectifiable under Section 84 of the Act. Therefore, the respondent was bound to exercise the power in a judicious manner and consider the case of the petitioner, as putforth by them, in their applications filed under Section 84 of the Act dated 28.10.2016. Thus, having noticed that the or....