Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (1) TMI 509

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the judgments of the High Court or the Supreme Court, which are covered on the issue and binding on the Authorities, when not considered or when the factual aspect has not been correctly stated, a mistake would occur on the face of the record. It has to be undoubtedly held that the impugned orders do not address the real issue and that the finding rendered by the first respondent in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned orders is not legally tenable. One more error, which is apparent on the face of the orders passed by the first respondent, is that there is no endeavour made by the third respondent to examine as to whether the error sought to be pointed out by the petitioner was an error apparent on the face of the records. However, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, since, by then, the files were transferred to the first respondent, who became the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. Thereupon, the revised orders of assessment were passed by the first respondent, as against which, the petitioner did not file any appeal, but filed petitions under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 to the third respondent stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the orders of revised assessment and requested the third respondent to exercise his powers under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and consider their case. 4. The petitioner also filed their written submissions before the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner granting them an opportunity of persona .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Nadu General Sales Tax Act empowers either an Assessing Authority or an Appellate Authority or a Revisional Authority including the Appellate Tribunal to pass an order to rectify any error apparent on the face of record. Such a power could be exercised by the respective Authorities at any time within a period of five years from the date of any order passed by the respective Authorities. Nevertheless, in terms of proviso to the said Section, no such rectification, which has the effect of enhancing the assessment or any penalty, shall be made unless such Authority has given notice to the dealer and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. For the purpose of present controversy, the provision of Sub-Section (1) of Section 55 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duced for entitlement of reduction in tax and consequent refund and when the same has not been taken into consideration, it could be termed to be a mistake apparent from the record and the same could be rectified, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [(2008) 305 ITR 227]. 7. I had an occasion to consider an identical issue in the case of M/s.Sujana Towers Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) [W.P.No.30304 of 2014 dated 20.11.2014] wherein an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 was under challenge. While considering the scope of Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, it was observed as follows : Section 84 of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible and the only requirement for rectification is that the mistake must be a rectifiable mistake and the same must be apparent on the face of the record. One more aspect, which was pointed out by the Honourable Division Bench in terms of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in A.C.I.T. Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [(2008) 305 ITR 227] was that when the judgments of Courts are produced for entitlement of reduction in tax and consequent refund and when the same has not been taken into consideration, it could be termed to be a mistake apparent from the records and the same could be rectified. 10. Applying the law laid down in above referred to decisions to the fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates