9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 176 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRectification of errors - Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT - This Court has no difficulty in appreciating the submissions made by the Government Pleader. The merit in these submissions is dependent on the objections raised by a party and how they are dealt with by the authority. The order of the authority ought to reflect how it is considered the errors pointed out - It is sufficient to hold that the orders now impugned in these two writ petitions suffer from too much of brevity and the orders do not attempt to refer to any of the errors pointed out by the petitioner/assessee. Exts.P5 and P6 orders made under Section 66 are set aside. The matter remitted to first respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to orders under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for rectification of errors. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, a trading company, challenged orders Exts.P5 and P6 dated 16.03.2019 passed by the first respondent under Section 66 of the Act, rejecting the request for rectification of errors. The petitioner argued that errors should be corrected at the earliest stage to avoid unnecessary appeals. The Government Pleader defended the first respondent's discretion, stating that the legality of the order is not dependent on its length, and reasons for not correcting errors need not be provided. The Court examined the submissions and found that the orders lacked detail and did not address the errors pointed out by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court set aside orders Exts.P5 and P6, remitting the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the importance of the authority's orders reflecting how errors are considered and addressed. The orders in question were deemed too brief and failed to engage with the petitioner's objections adequately. To uphold justice and the purpose of Section 66, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the first respondent with additional documents on 22nd April 2019. The first respondent was instructed to provide an opportunity for a hearing and pass a new order by 15.5.2019. The writ petition was granted accordingly, ensuring a fair reconsideration of the rectification request.
|
