2021 (11) TMI 828 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of request of the petitioner for rectification of an Assessment Order - Recovery of proportionate Input Tax Credit - Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 - HELD THAT - This is the case where the petitioner had failed to challenge the Assessment Order dated 16.06.2015 in time before the Appellate Commissioner. This is not a case where there is an error apparent on the face of record for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act 2006 - The amount involved is also meagre amount of Rs. 33, 063/- on account of the consequences of the Assessment Order under CST for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. Therefore there is not only no merits in the present writ petition but also no equity in favour of the petitioner. This Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a revision application if such application can be filed in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rectification of Assessment Order under TNVAT Act, 2006.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their request for rectification of an Assessment Order dated 16.06.2015 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner claimed that errors were present in the Assessment Order, which should have been rectified under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner realized the mistakes when a consequential order was passed for the same Assessment Year to recover Input Tax Credit. The petitioner argued that a personal hearing was required under Section 84(2) of the TNVAT Act, and the impugned order should be quashed to allow for representation.

The respondent, represented by the Government Counsel, contended that the Assessment Order was final and rectification could not serve as an appeal. It was argued that the only recourse for challenging the order was through an appeal to the Appellate Commissioner, which the petitioner failed to do. The respondent cited a previous court decision stating that rectification is limited to clerical and arithmetical errors, and since the basis of assessment was being challenged, the rejection of the rectification application was justified.

After considering the arguments and examining the relevant orders and applications, the court found that the petitioner had not timely challenged the Assessment Order before the Appellate Commissioner. The court noted that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to invoke the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. Additionally, the court highlighted the small amount involved in the dispute, indicating no merit or equity in favor of the petitioner. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to file a revision application if permissible under the law, and no costs were awarded.