2014 (8) TMI 927 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of their applications for rectification submitted under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 - Held that - For entertaining an application for rectification, the respondent has to see whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner has pointed out errors apparent on the face of the record in respect of each assessment year. For instance, for the assessment year 2007-08, the Miscellaneous Income taken by the respondent in the original order of assessment was ₹ 58,10,000/-. But in the balance sheet for the year 2007-08, it is seen from the Schedule 14 that the said amount of ₹ 58,10,000/- related to the year 2007 and not 2008. For the assessment year 2007-08, Miscellaneous Income was ₹ 21.80 lakhs. Therefore, there appears to be an obvious error in so far as the assessment year 2007-08 is concerned. - Similarly, in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, the total value of Plant & Machinery sold is indicated in the order of assessment as ₹ 156,75,10,000. But the balance sheet shows that the sale of Plant & Machinery was to the extent of ₹ 15,67,51,000/-. One more 'zero' has been added at the end, which is an error apparent on the face of the record. At least prima facie, the petitioner is able to establish that there are errors apparent on the face of the record in respect of each of the assessment year - But unfortunately, the respondent has not applied his mind to these errors. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging rejection of rectification applications under Section 84 of TN VAT Act, 2006.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the rejection of their rectification applications under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders, citing pending rectification applications. An interim order was passed directing the respondent to provide specific information regarding the rectification applications. However, on the same day, all rectification applications for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-2012 were rejected, leading to the current writ petitions challenging these rejections.

To entertain a rectification application, the respondent must identify any error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner highlighted errors apparent in the records for each assessment year. For instance, in the assessment year 2007-08, there was a discrepancy in the Miscellaneous Income figures between the original order and the balance sheet. Similarly, in the assessment year 2010-11, an error was noted in the total value of Plant & Machinery sold. These discrepancies indicated clear errors on the face of the record, demonstrating the need for rectification.

The court acknowledged the prima facie evidence presented by the petitioner regarding errors in each assessment year. However, it was noted that the respondent had not properly considered these errors, leading to the impugned orders being set aside. The court directed the respondent to re-examine the rectification applications, giving the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The petitioner was also granted the right to defreeze their bank account, considering the interim order already in place. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.