2017 (12) TMI 688 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification of assessment order - TNGST Act - whether the respondent was justified in rejecting the application for rectification on the ground that there is no mistake, which is apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification under Section 55 of the TNGST Act, 1959? - Held that - the legal position being that if the Supreme Court or the High Court pronounces the true position of law, any decision rendered by any other authority contrary to that is required to be regarded as an error which is apparent on the record - the assessing officer has given certain reasons in the assessment order to state that as to how the petitioner is not entitled for sale against Form XVII declaration and it is not a case where defective Form XVII declaration has been filed. Therefore, the presumption, which was drawn against the petitioner should be discharged by the petitioner by producing necessary documents and records before the concerned authority and not before this Court. There is no error to be rectified - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging orders rejecting rectification of assessment for 2002-03 and 2003-04 under Section 55 of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around whether the respondent was justified in rejecting the application for rectification based on the absence of an apparent mistake on the face of the record. The court delves into the legal understanding of what constitutes an error that is apparent on the face of the record. Citing precedents like Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, the court emphasizes the authority's power to rectify mistakes that are evident from the record. Additionally, the judgment in Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot, vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. highlights the significance of considering decisions of jurisdictional courts as mistakes apparent from the record, subject to rectification under the relevant provisions.

The court further examines the legal principle that errors contrary to pronouncements by the Supreme Court or High Court are considered apparent on the record, necessitating rectification. Referring to the case of V. Guard Industries Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer, it reiterates that when the apex court clarifies the legal position, any decision conflicting with it qualifies as an error requiring rectification. Applying these legal principles to the case at hand, the petitioner's argument revolves around the sale of mineral turpentine oil against Form XVII declaration, claiming entitlement to a concessional tax rate. However, the assessing officer's findings indicate that the petitioner's sales did not align with the conditions for concessional rates, leading to a denial of rectification.

The court emphasizes that factual disputes should be addressed before the appellate authority rather than in a writ petition. It underscores the importance of producing necessary documents to counter presumptions made by the assessing officer. Despite the petitioner's efforts to appeal and seek waiver of pre-deposit, the appeal was rejected due to non-compliance. The court grants the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority within a specified timeframe, considering the prolonged pendency of the writ petitions. Ultimately, the court dismisses the writ petitions, upholding the respondent's orders and denying the need for rectification based on the presented facts.