9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed on 06.01.2020 and the rectification application ought to have been filed on or before 06.04.2020. However, the period from 15.03.2020 to 06.04.2020 ought to be excluded based on the suo motu extension order. Then the 90 days ought to be calculated from 01.03.2022, wherein the time is available until 30.05.2022, but the petitioner had filed the application on 02.09.2020 itself, which is within the period of limitation. Therefore, the impugned order stating that the rectification application is filed beyond the period of limitation is incorrect. Reliance placed in TVL. SHANDONG TEIJUN ELECTRIC POWER ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER, CHIDAMBARAM [ 2022 (3) TMI 542 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] where it was held that It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts held in semi-finished goods held in stock by filing Form TRAN-1 within stipulated time. However, while recording the figures, inadvertently specified the CENVAT credit accrued on purchase of inputs under TNVAT Act. The credit should have been recorded in column 7 (a) of TRAN-1 Form, but inadvertently recorded in column 5(c) Act. The respondent had issue notice dated 03.10.2019 stating that there was no ITC available in last returns filed under TNVAT and hence the credit in TRAN-1 is ineligible. After receiving this notice only then the petitioner came to know of the said mistake. Thereafter the respondent confirmed the SCN vide order dated 06.01.2020. Further the respondent has rectified the assessment order and passed a rectified orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond the period of limitation is incorrect. 6. The Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.1847 of 2022, vide order dated 10.02.2022 has held as under: 24. Insofar as the limitation point is concerned, it has been made explicitly clear in the said orders referred to above. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the limitation, there could be no much quarrel from respondent side also as these all are the materials on records. Therefore, the limitation insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is saved by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, hence, on that ground mainly if the rectification application is rejected throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the impugned order since cannot stand in the legal scrutiny, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 27. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration. While reconsidering the same, the respondent shall borne in mind the independent nature of the decision making process with regard to the alleged rectification of error anything apparently on the face of the record to be rectified on its own merits, wherein after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the rectification application shall be accordingly decided and disposed of within a period of six weeks. 7. Following the same, this Court is inclined to all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
