2023 (10) TMI 490 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of challenge to the impugned orders of assessment for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 - rejection on the premise that the appellant is bound to prefer an appeal and the filing of the rectification petition is only to circumvent the filing of a statutory appeal, which mandates pre-deposit. HELD THAT - It is trite law that the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not direct a statutory authority to exercise its discretion in a particular manner, but would only command the statutory authority to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according to law. In the instant case, the learned Judge has proceeded to examine and reject the rectification petition, which is a discretion vested with the assessing authority and has thus substituted his views as that of the assessing officer, which is impermissible in law. In such view of the matter, the order of the learned Judge passed in the writ petitions is liable to be set aside and is thus, set aside. As a sequel, the respondent is directed to pass orders on the rectification petition filed by the appellant on 30.01.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned Judge. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the order of assessment for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the filing of a rectification petition, dismissal of the writ petitions, and interference with the order of the learned Judge.

Challenge to Order of Assessment:
The appellant, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged the order of assessment for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Enforcement Wing Officers found defects in the appellant's business, leading to the assessment orders dated 15.11.2013. The appellant subsequently filed a rectification petition on 30.01.2014, citing various grounds including double taxation on interstate purchases, issues with TDS deductions, and the estimation of gross profit. The appellant sought rectification based on errors apparent on the face of the record.

Dismissal of Writ Petitions:
The learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant on the grounds that they were filed prematurely without allowing sufficient time for the respondent to consider the rectification petition. The Judge observed that the reasons for rectification did not fall within the scope of errors apparent on the face of the record, requiring detailed arguments. The Judge's order was challenged by the appellant in the present appeals.

Interference with Judge's Order:
The High Court found that the learned Judge's dismissal of the writ petitions warranted interference for two main reasons. Firstly, the power of rectification is discretionary and should be exercised by the assessing authority, not the Courts. Secondly, the Judge's order effectively deprived the appellant of the statutory remedy of rectification. The Court emphasized that judicial review does not entail directing a statutory authority to exercise its discretion in a particular manner but to perform its duty according to law. The Court set aside the Judge's order and directed the respondent to reconsider the rectification petition on its merits within six weeks.