9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 93 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - non-speaking order - not taken note of the contentions/details adverted to while making an order u/s 66 - HELD THAT - To find out whether rectification is really warranted on Ext.P2, this Court even for the limited purpose of judicial review undertake such enquiry. But having been satisfied that the jurisdiction vested in first respondent by Section 66 of the Act is not properly exercised, Ext.P4 is set aside and matter remitted to first respondent for disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner appears before the Officer on 07.08.2019. The Officer either on the date so appointed or any date fixed for this purpose considers the request for rectification and passes final orders not beyond 31.08.2019 - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment order, rectification order, and revenue recovery notice for the assessment year 2015-2016. Challenge to a nonspeaking order under Section 66 of the KVAT Act 2003. Analysis: The petitioner sought relief through a Writ of Certiorari to quash the P1 assessment order, P4 rectification order, and P5 revenue recovery notice for the assessment year 2015-2016. Additionally, the petitioner requested a Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate order for the first respondent to issue a rectification order after verifying assessment records and alleged records related to KVATIS data. Adv. Latha K. challenged the nonspeaking order made in Ext.P4, where the application under Section 66 of the KVAT Act 2003 was rejected for M/s. Emersion Network Power (India) Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to properly examine the error apparent on the face of the record and record a finding as required. Ext.P2 was highlighted to show that the contentions/details were not adequately considered while making the order under Section 66 of the Act. The Court, upon review, found that the jurisdiction vested in the first respondent was not properly exercised, leading to the setting aside of Ext.P4 and remitting the matter to the first respondent for proper disposal in accordance with the law. The petitioner was required to appear before the Officer on a specified date to consider the request for rectification. The Officer was directed to pass final orders not later than 31.08.2019. The writ petitions were disposed of in the manner indicated above, providing relief to the petitioner regarding the challenged orders and notices.
|
