2021 (9) TMI 201 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Power to rectify mistake - error apparent on the face of record - submission of C-forms earlier with a request to recompute the demand on the basis of the same, but the same has not been considered while making the impugned assessment - Section 84 of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - A careful perusal of Section 84 of TNVAT Act and more particularly the language in which Section 84 of TNVAT Act is couched, makes it clear that it is a provision which is for rectifying errors apparent on the face of the record and such power is vested with the Assessment Authorities, Appellate Authorities and Revisional Authorities besides Tribunals. This provision is akin to Section 152 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908'. Therefore, in assessment proceedings, if there is grievance qua certain points raised or certain materials placed before original authority not having been considered, that can qualify as a ground for appeal but cannot be slithered through as a rectification. Rectification is necessarily for errors that may have crept in and more particularly, errors which may have crept in inadvertently. Therefore, Section 84 of TNVAT does not come to the aid of writ petitioner in the captioned writ petitions. Principles qua alternate remedy - HELD THAT - There is no impediment whatsoever for writ petitioner to file statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. This is more so, as this is the second round of litigation. Therefore, there is no reason much less compelling reason to demonstrate that the appeal remedy cannot be resorted to in the case on hand - this Court is informed that owing to earlier rounds of litigation, already certain deposits have been made by assessee and that there is also a time frame for preferring the appeal. Writ Petitions are disposed of, holding that it is for writ petitioner to avail alternate remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the point urged qualifies as rectification within the meaning of Section 84 of TNVAT Act.
2. Availability and appropriateness of alternate statutory remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act.
3. Consideration of C-forms submitted by the petitioner and its impact on the impugned assessment orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification under Section 84 of TNVAT Act:
The core ground raised by the petitioner was that the C-forms submitted earlier were not considered in the impugned assessment. The petitioner contended that this oversight should be rectified under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, which allows rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record. The court examined Section 84, noting that it is intended for rectifying inadvertent errors and not for re-evaluating materials or points not considered by the original authority. The court concluded that the petitioner's grievance about the non-consideration of C-forms does not qualify as an error apparent on the face of the record and thus cannot be addressed under Section 84.

2. Alternate Statutory Remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act:
The respondent argued that the petitioner has a statutory right to appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act against the impugned orders. The court emphasized that while alternate remedy is a rule of discretion and not compulsion, it is particularly stringent in fiscal matters. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the court reiterated that statutory remedies should be exhausted before invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. The court found no compelling reason to bypass the alternate remedy, especially since this was the second round of litigation and the petitioner had already been given an opportunity to present their case.

3. Consideration of C-forms:
The petitioner had requested the revenue to recompute the demand based on the C-forms submitted. The court noted that this request was akin to seeking a rectification and not an appeal. The court held that the proper course for the petitioner was to file a statutory appeal where such issues could be adequately addressed. The court also acknowledged that the petitioner had already made certain deposits as part of the earlier litigation, which could be considered towards the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal.

Conclusion and Orders:
The court disposed of the writ petitions, directing the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. The court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case. The appellate authority was instructed to consider the sums already deposited by the petitioner and to address any issues related to the limitation period by considering the time spent in the High Court proceedings. The connected writ miscellaneous petitions were also closed with no order as to costs.