2021 (8) TMI 247 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - demand of tax - case of petitioner is that the assessment order suffered from errors apparent on the face of record - HELD THAT - Since the mistake pointed out by the petitioner is an error apparent on the face of record, the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking to rectify the said error, may be directed to be disposed of by the respondent. This Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondent to consider the representation dated 30.12.2019, if not considered earlier, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Representation filed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act regarding assessment orders.
2. Whether the assessment orders suffered from apparent errors on the face of the record.
3. Mandamus seeking direction to dispose of the representation.
4. Legal principles regarding errors apparent on the face of the record.
5. Respondent's undertaking to consider the representation and pass orders.
6. Court's directive to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within a specified timeframe.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act and CST Act operating a restaurant, challenged assessment orders demanding tax for multiple years. The petitioner contended that the assessment orders contained errors apparent on the face of the record and filed a representation under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. Citing the case law of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd, the petitioner argued that a patent error, not requiring extensive discussion, qualifies as an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting rectification by the respondent.

The learned Government Advocate for the respondent acknowledged the petitioner's representation and assured the court that the respondent would review the representation and issue orders based on merit within a stipulated timeframe. Without delving into the merits of the case, the Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.12.2019 and make appropriate decisions in accordance with the law after providing the petitioner with a hearing opportunity, all to be completed within six weeks from the date of receiving the court's order.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of without imposing any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment emphasized the importance of addressing errors apparent on the face of the record promptly and in compliance with legal procedures, ensuring fair consideration and due process for the petitioner.