2010 (12) TMI 1103 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under TNGST Act, 1959 for rectification of errors apparent on the face of record.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated November 6, 2007, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, T. Nagar, Chennai, and to direct acceptance of a petition filed under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessment order was passed on March 9, 2007, rejecting the form F declaration due to certain defects. Instead of appealing, the petitioner submitted a letter for rectification under section 55 of the TNGST Act and section 9(2A) of the CST Act, 1956. The court held that rectification of error apparent on the face of record is limited to clerical or mathematical errors, not for bringing new records post-assessment for review. The authority rightly rejected the rectification application as it was not in line with the law and the decision in a Supreme Court case. The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merits, and no costs were awarded.

This judgment revolves around the challenge to an assessment order under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, seeking rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner's attempt to rectify the assessment order through a letter under specific provisions of the TNGST Act and the CST Act, 1956, was deemed improper by the court. The court differentiated between rectification and review, emphasizing that rectification is limited to correcting clerical or mathematical errors, not for introducing new records for review post-assessment. The court cited a Supreme Court decision to support its conclusion that the rectification application was rightly rejected by the authority. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures and limitations when seeking rectification of assessment orders under tax laws.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition for lack of merits, emphasizing that the rectification application filed by the petitioner was not in accordance with the law. The court's decision was based on the understanding that rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record is distinct from seeking a review of the assessment order post-assessment. The judgment underscores the necessity of complying with legal provisions and limitations when challenging assessment orders under sales tax laws.