TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider the said applications, since the TNVAT Act does not prescribe an outer time limit for filing applications under Section 84 of the Act - the reason assigned by the respondent in the orders dated 25.11.2016 for rejecting the applications filed under Section 84 of the Act is incorrect. Admittedly, in the order dated 23.11.2015, while granting partial relief to the petitioner, the respondent disallowed the substantial portion of the refund claim. The order does not stated as to why such disallowance has been made. There is no explanation in the order dated 23.11.2015 as to how, the respondent adopted uniform percentage of wastage at 2%. When the respondent has not assigned reasons for disallowing part of refund claim while passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner seeks for a direction upon the respondent to modify the orders of refund dated 23.11.2015 and the orders of rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for rectification dated 25.11.2016 and consequently to sanction refund of the value of 'Capital Goods' in terms of Section 18(1) of the TNVAT Act and the refund pertaining to wastage and to pass other appropriate orders. 4. The petitioner filed refund claims before the respondent on various dates for the relevant assessment years, the respondent vide separate orders dated 23.11.2015 accepted the refund claim in part and has disallowed a portion of the claim under two heads, namely Wastage as per Section 19(9) of the Act at 2 % and Less Capital Goods . The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89 (Mad). On receipt of the applications filed under Section 84 of the Act, it appears that though specifically, the petitioner sought for an opportunity of personal hearing, it is not been granted. The respondent, by the impugned orders dated 25.11.2016 rejected the petitions merely on the ground that there is no valid reason to re-open the refund claim under Section 84 of the Act. 6. In my considered view, the reason assigned by the respondent in the orders dated 25.11.2016 for rejecting the applications filed under Section 84 of the Act is incorrect. Admittedly, in the order dated 23.11.2015, while granting partial relief to the petitioner, the respondent disallowed the substantial portion of the refund claim. The order does not state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept to hold that adoption of uniform percentage of wastage is incorrect. When the respondent has not assigned reasons for disallowing part of refund claim while passing order dated 23.11.2015, it is sufficient to hold that the order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and necessarily rectifiable under Section 84 of the Act. Therefore, the respondent was bound to exercise the power in a judicious manner and consider the case of the petitioner, as putforth by them, in their applications filed under Section 84 of the Act dated 28.10.2016. Thus, having noticed that the orders dated 23.11.2015 does not assign reason for disallowance of part of the refund claim and such disallowance was made without notice or opportunity to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
