9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 423 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSeeking direction to respondent to consider the representation within stipulated period - availability of appeal remedy, which was not exhausted - existence of error, apparently on the face of the record or not - Section 84 of the TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - Since Sub-Section (4) of Section 84 of the TNVAT Act has made it clear that even if the appeal / revision has been filed or pending, that will not preclude the power vested in the assessing authority to decide any such application be moved by the assessee to be considered under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. The objection raised by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent that without exhausting appeal remedy as against the original order / assessment order passed by the assessing authority, since the petitioner has invoked the provision under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, the same cannot be entertained, in the considered view of this Court, will not be sustainable and cannot be countenanced - this Court feels that the plea raised by the petitioner for the simple prayer of mandamus to consider his request dated 06.01.2020 under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, on merits by the assessing authority can very well be considered. It is made clear that before passing final order as indicated above under Section 84(1) of the TNVAT Act, the respondent shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after assessing and evaluating the details to be supplied in this regard by the petitioner/assessee, needful as indicated shall be undertaken by the respondent - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Prayer for a Writ of Mandamus to consider representation under TNVAT Act. Analysis: The petitioner, a dealer in Hardware Materials under TNVAT Act, was assessed under self-assessment basis initially. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice highlighting defects in returns, to which the petitioner replied with a defense. However, the respondent rejected the defense and demanded additional tax payment. The petitioner claimed an excess payment of ?310 was not considered in the order dated 19.12.2018, and the reply given by the petitioner was not properly evaluated. The petitioner submitted a representation on 06.01.2020 under Section 84 of TNVAT Act, requesting rectification of errors in the assessment order. As no action was taken by the respondent, the petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel the respondent to consider the representation. The petitioner's counsel argued for the consideration of the representation within a stipulated timeframe. The Government Advocate contended that the petitioner had the option to appeal the original order within thirty days but failed to do so. Therefore, seeking relief under Section 84 of TNVAT Act was not appropriate. The Government Advocate opposed the prayer for Mandamus, stating it should be rejected. The Court examined Section 84 of TNVAT Act, which allows rectification of errors within five years from the date of the original order. It clarified that the assessing authority can rectify errors even if an appeal is pending. The Court emphasized that the assessing authority must consider the details provided by the assessee before deciding on rectification. The Court dismissed the objection raised by the Government Advocate, stating that the petitioner's plea for Mandamus to consider the representation under Section 84 of TNVAT Act was valid. It directed the respondent to evaluate the representation and decide on it within twelve weeks, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction for the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation under Section 84 of TNVAT Act within the specified timeframe, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard and evaluated properly.
|
