2022 (12) TMI 713 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - petitioner sought rectification of the assessment by way of an application under Section 84 of TNVAT Act - reversal of input tax credit (ITC), on interstate sales against C declaration Forms - HELD THAT - The contents of para 8 run counter to the records and, in fact, only tantamount to the position that the impugned order has been passed based on the petitioner's written request for rectification - Despite repeated opportunities granted to the learned counsel for the respondent to produce a copy of the personal hearing notice or at least the date on which personal hearing was conducted, there is no response forthcoming leading to the unambiguous view that there was no personal hearing that has been granted to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner will appear before the respondent on Monday, the 5th of December, 2022 at 10.30 a.m. without expecting any further notice in this regard along with complete particulars in respect of the request for rectification. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the period 2014-15.
2. Rectification of assessment under Section 84 of the Act.
3. Errors in the Section 84 application related to purchase tax and reversal of input tax credit.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
5. Dispute regarding whether the petitioner was granted a personal hearing prior to the order.
6. Setting aside the impugned order and directing the petitioner to appear for rectification.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the assessment of the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the period 2014-15. The petitioner sought rectification of the assessment under Section 84 of the Act due to identified errors, including issues related to purchase tax and reversal of input tax credit on interstate sales against C declaration Forms. The petitioner challenged the impugned order primarily on the grounds of a violation of principles of natural justice, asserting that no opportunity was granted to address the errors before the order was passed.

The respondent, represented by the learned Government Advocate, contended that the petitioner was indeed heard before the order was issued, citing a specific paragraph in the counter statement. However, the court found this argument to be inconsistent with the records, indicating that the impugned order was based solely on the petitioner's written request for rectification. Despite multiple opportunities given to the respondent's counsel to provide evidence of a personal hearing, no such documentation was produced, leading to the conclusion that no actual personal hearing took place.

Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent to address the rectification request. The petitioner was instructed to provide complete particulars regarding the request on a specified date, failing which the benefit of the order would be lost, and the impugned order would be reinstated automatically. The respondent was given a deadline to pass orders on the Section 84 application within four weeks from the specified date. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed as well.