9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 733 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection of request of the petitioner for rectification of assessment sought for under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - rejection of rectification request on the ground that there was no discussion about this in the order - difference of opinion between the parties was that the petitioners claim that one of their products, TANG was existable to taxes at the rate of 4% and thereafter 5%, whereas it is the stand of the respondents that the rates applicable would be 12.5% and thereafter 14%. HELD THAT - The petitioner sought rectification under Section 84 that has come to be rejected by the officer on 15.11.2019 on the ground that there was no discussion in the order dated 03.05.2019 and hence no rectifiable error. This conclusion of the appellate authority is clearly contrary to law insofar as the very non-consideration of submissions dated 23.01.2019, would constitute an error apparent on record liable to be rectified under Section 84 of the Act. In light of this, the impugned orders need to be set aside. The petitioner will appear before the appellate authority on 24.03.2023 at 10.03 a.m. with materials in support of the request of rectification and without anticipating any notice afresh for the hearing scheduled as aforesaid. After hearing the petitioner, orders shall be passed on the Section 84 application within a period of four weeks from the date of personal hearing as fixed aforesaid. Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the rejection of a request for rectification of assessment under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the periods 2011-12 to 2015-16. The main issue revolves around the differential rate of taxes claimed by the petitioner. Details of the Judgment: Assessment Proceedings: The petitioner, a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of confectionery candy products, had assessments framed for the periods in question at an enhanced rate of tax. The Assessing Officer completed the assessments without any bifurcation of the turnover between the products manufactured and sold. Dispute on Tax Rates: The dispute between the parties centered on the tax rates applicable to the petitioner's product, TANG. While the petitioner claimed a lower tax rate, the respondents contended for a higher rate. The Assessing Authority confirmed the higher rates, subjecting the entirety of the turnover to the enhanced rate. Appeals and Additional Submission: The petitioner filed appeals challenging the enhanced tax rate. During the appeal process, it was revealed that the turnover related to different products, not just TANG. An additional submission was made, arguing that the enhanced rate should only apply to the turnover attributable to TANG. Error in Appellate Order: The appellate order dated 03.05.2019 failed to consider the additional submission made on 23.01.2019. This omission constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, invoking the provisions of Section 84 of the Act for rectification. Rectification Request and Rejection: The petitioner sought rectification under Section 84, which was rejected by the officer on the ground of no discussion in the appellate order. The court held that the non-consideration of the submissions constituted a rectifiable error under Section 84. Court Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the writ petitions, directing the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority with supporting materials for rectification. The appellate authority was instructed to pass orders on the Section 84 application within four weeks from the date of the personal hearing. Conclusion: The judgment highlights the importance of proper consideration of submissions in assessment proceedings and the rectification process under Section 84 of the Act to address errors apparent on the face of the record, ensuring a fair and accurate tax assessment process.
|
