2022 (3) TMI 1250 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification of assessment order - Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 - HELD THAT - Section 84 does not speak about the revision of assessment and also the assessing officer is not empowered to revise the assessment etc., this Court is of the considered opinion that the same are not the proper reason to reject the rectification application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that, the impugned order does not stand in the legal scrutiny as no consideration has been shown with regard to the reason stated by the petitioner for such rectification. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration.

Summary

Issues:
Prayer for Writ of Certiorari to quash impugned proceedings of the Respondent in Rc.A3/357/2019 TIN 33404461920 dated 03.02.2022 for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2014-15 under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned proceedings of the Respondent related to assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2014-15 under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner, after assessment orders were passed, applied for rectification invoking Section 84 due to certain grounds. However, the application for rectification was rejected through the impugned order dated 03.02.2022.

2. The petitioner's counsel contended that the assessing authority did not consider the grounds raised for rectification and simply cited Section 84, stating the assessing officer lacked the power to revise the assessment, leading to the rejection without proper reasoning. The Government Advocate for the respondent could not confirm if the grounds for rectification were evaluated before the rejection order was passed.

3. The Court observed that the assessing authority's reasoning, solely quoting Section 84 and stating the officer lacked power to revise the assessment, was insufficient to reject the rectification application. The Court held that the impugned order did not withstand legal scrutiny as it lacked consideration for the petitioner's reasons for rectification. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration.

4. The Court directed the respondent to reconsider the matter, provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard regarding the grounds for rectification, and issue a reasoned order on the acceptance or rejection of the rectification grounds within eight weeks. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.