TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rative to issue a SCN for a revision under Section 22(4) of erstwhile TNVAT Act, 2006 unlike best judgment method revision under Section 27 of TNVAT Act wherein it is statutorily imperative to issue SCN before resorting to Section 27 of TNVAT Act - the expression 'errors apparent on the face of record' has been repeatedly explained by this Court to be errors which are so obvious and so palpable (tangible if one may say so) that no inferential process is required or no inferential process need to be applied to detect the error. A careful perusal of these issues set out herein will make it clear that they may not qualify as errors apparent on the face of record but this Court refrains itself from expressing any view or opinion on the same as this Court intends to preserve the rights of the writ petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 107 of TN-G ST Act, if the writ petitioner is so advised and if the writ petitioner is desires to do so. This Court to the inevitable sequitur that the captioned main writ petition fails. However, before dismissing the captioned writ petition, it is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner are preserv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aptioned main writ petition turns, a counter affidavit from the respondent is really not necessary more so, as the learned Revenue counsel has instructions. In this scenario, with the consent of both sides i.e., learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned Revenue counsel, main writ petition was taken up and heard out. 7. As regards the first point i.e., the impugned order not being preceded by Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A, learned counsel for writ petitioner pressed into service an order dated 21.09.2021 returned by me in W.P.No.19756 of 2021 and WMP No. 21034 of 2021 [Shri Tyres Vs. State Tax Officer] . According to learned counsel for writ petitioner, under some what similar circumstances, in the aforementioned Shri Tyres case, I had interfered with the impugned order thereat. Learned Revenue counsel points out that there is an amendment to Rule 142 of 'Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017' [hereinafter 'TN-G ST Rules' for the sake of convenience and clarity] which kicked in on and from 15.10.2020 wherein under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 142 of TN-G ST Rules, the expression 'proper officer shall' has been amended to read as 'pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d penalty as ascertained by the said officer, in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A.] (2) Where, before the service of notice or statement, the person chargeable with tax makes payment of the tax and interest in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) of section 73 or, as the case may be, tax, interest and penalty in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) of section 74, or where any person makes payment of tax, interest, penalty or any other amount due in accordance with the provisions of the Act [whether on his own ascertainment or, as communicated by the proper officer under sub-rule (1A),] he shall inform the proper officer of such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and the proper officer shall issue an acknowledgement, accepting the payment made by the said person in FORM GST DRC 04. [(2A) Where the person referred to in sub-rule (1A) has made partial payment of the amount communicated to him or desires to file any submissions against the proposed liability, he may make such submission in Part B of FORM GST DRC-01A.] (3) Where the person chargeable with tax makes payment of tax and interest under sub-section (8) of section 73 or, as the case may be, tax, inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esorting to Section 27 of TNVAT Act. This is vide State Bank of India officers case law, [State Bank of India Officer's Association (CC) - SBIOA Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Chennai-1 in W.P.No.22634 of 2019 order dated 01.08.2019] and the same has been upheld / sustained by a Hon'ble Division Bench. Applying the very same principle to the case on hand, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it is not imperative to issue a SCN. Learned counsel for writ petitioner points out that the impugned order records that a personal hearing was in fact held on 10.06.2022 but there was actually no personal hearing. As personal hearing is not statutorily imperative, it does not cut ice with this Court as regards the writ petitioner's campaign against the impugned order. This takes this Court to the last point i.e., rectification. Section 161 of TN-G ST Act no doubt provides for rectification of errors apparent on the face of record at the instance of an affected person also but what is of significance is, it provides for rectification of 'errors apparent on the face of record'. Learned counsel for writ petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the recti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
