9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 692 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - rectification of mistake - Section 84 of the Act - Held that - the language employed in the said provision confers power on the Assessing Authority or an Appellate or Revising Authority including the Appellate Tribunal at any time within five years from the date of any order passed by it, rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, if the dealer is able to point out the errors which are apparent on the face of the record, then obviously the Authority can exercise its powers. However, in case where the Assessing Authority refused to exercise power, he should spell out the reason as to how he is of the prima facie view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. In the instant case, the said finding is lacking as the order dated 24.12.2013 is devoid of reasons. Hence, to that extent, this Court is inclined to interfere in the orders passed by the respondent. The writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 24.12.2013 rejecting the petitioner s application under Section 84 of the Act is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent shall re-consider the petitioner s application for rectification of error dated 13.12.2013, afford an opportunity of personal hearing and after considering the matter in its entirety, pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law on the two issues which have been pointed out by the petitioner, namely, with regard to the error in inclusion of the purchase turnover which has been exempted and with regard to the sale of assets.
Issues: Challenge to assessment orders for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 regarding purchase turnover and sale of assets, application under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record.
Analysis: 1. Challenge to Assessment Orders: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged the assessment orders for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 specifically on two issues: purchase turnover taxed under Section 12 of the Act and tax levied on the sale of assets. The Assessing Officer accepted the petitioner's objections for exempted sales but included the purchase turnover taxable under Section 12, which the petitioner claimed was an error apparent on the face of the record and inconsistent with the findings in the assessment orders. 2. Tax on Sale of Assets: The petitioner disputed the tax demand at a rate of 12.5% on the sale of assets, arguing that the figures under Assets Deletion in the fixed assets schedule represented the cost of assets sold in the books, not the sale value. The petitioner filed an application under Section 84 of the Act for rectification of the alleged errors made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the Officer wrongly considered these figures as income earned in the course of the hotel business. The respondent rejected the application, stating that the assessment was based on the details available in the returns and objections filed by the petitioner. 3. Rectification under Section 84: Section 84 of the Act empowers the Assessing Authority to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record within five years from the date of the order. The court noted that if a dealer points out such errors, the authority should provide reasons if refusing to rectify them. In this case, the court found the order rejecting the petitioner's application lacked reasoning, prompting the court to intervene and set aside the order, remanding the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. 4. Court Decision: The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 84 of the Act. The court directed the respondent to re-examine the application, provide a personal hearing, and issue a speaking order on the identified issues related to the errors in the inclusion of exempted purchase turnover and the treatment of the sale of assets. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence of the judgment.
|
