TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....101719/2013-2014 dated 11.05.2022 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 on its own merits and in accordance with law. 3. The dispute relates to denial of input tax credit in terms of Section 19(5)(c) and 19(2)(V) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner had earlier suffered an Assessment order dated 24.06.2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014, wherein, the following amounts were confirmed against the petitioner. Sl.No. Reversal of Input Tax Credit amount confirmed under Section 19(5)(c) Reversal of Input Tax Credit amount confirmed under Section 19(2)(5) 1 3,05,909/- 5,41,115/- 4. The petitioner however did not c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the considered opinion, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 6. That apart, since there is an appeal remedy available for the petitioner, the impugned order can very well be challenged before the Appellate Authority by stating whatever the reason for filing a belated appeal before the Appellate Authority. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, hence, it is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed. However, this dismissal will not preclude the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority. If such an appeal is filed, depending upon the reasons to be submitted by filing the belated appeal, the same can be entertain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by its Senior Manager-Finance, Podanur Post, Coimbatore - 641 023. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that the petitioner failed to file an appeal against order dated 24.06.2016. It is submitted that even during the period after the aforesaid order was passed, there were several decisions of this Court which had followed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai Vs. M/s.Everest Industries Limited, rep by its Senior Manager-Finance, Podanur Post, Coimbatore - 641 023. However, the petitioner slept over its rights. It is submitted that no attempt was made challenging the Assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er would submit that even if the petitioner had failed to exercise the option under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, it would not precluded the petitioner from invoking the jurisdiction under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 13. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention to the decision of this Court in the following three cases:- (i) Khivraj Motors Limited, Rep by its Director Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Fast Track Assessment Circle - III, Chennai and another in W.A.Nos.3201 to 3204 of 2004 vide its order dated 04.02.2010; (ii) M/s.Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Rep by its General Manager Vs. The Assistant Commissioner - CT, Nadambakkam Assessment Circle and othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y error apparent on the face of the record. - (1) An assessing authority or an appellate or revising authority (including the Appellate Tribunal) may, at any time within [five years] from the date of any order passed by it, rectify any error apparent on the face of the record; Provided that no such rectification which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or any penalty shall be made unless such authority has given notice to the dealer and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 17. As mentioned above, the issue on merits is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai Vs. M/s.Everest Industries Limit....