9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 916 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRectification of mistake - application under Section 55 - Held that - The question as to whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record or not, qualifying a petition for entertainment under Section 55, falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and not within the jurisdiction of the Secretary. Therefore, the Secretary ought to have placed the papers before the Tribunal and it was for the Tribunal to have looked into the matter. Since the Secretary prejudged the issue without being vested any quasi judicial power to do so, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
Challenge to endorsement by Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal returning rectification application under wrong section. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an endorsement by the Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, returning their rectification application. The petitioner filed the application under Section 84 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, seeking rectification of an alleged mistake in an order dated 12.2.2014 by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, the Tribunal's order was under the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, requiring rectification under Section 55 of that Act instead. The Secretary returned the application, interpreting it as under Section 55 of the 1959 Act, stating that only errors apparent on the face of the record can be rectified under that section. The Court noted that deciding on the presence of such errors falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, not the Secretary's. The Secretary should have forwarded the application to the Tribunal for consideration rather than making a judgment. The Court found the Secretary's action premature and lacking quasi-judicial power. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the endorsement. The petitioner was permitted to resubmit the rectification application under the correct provision of law. The Tribunal was directed to consider the application on its merits, allowing the first respondent to make a decision in accordance with the law after hearing the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
