SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Cus - When there is nothing on record to show that appellant had connived with other three persons to import AA batteries under the guise of declaring goods as Calcium Carbonate, penalty imposed on appellant are set aside: HCCongress fields Rahul Gandhi from Rae Bareli and Kishori Lal Sharma from AmethiCus - The penalty imposed on assessee was set aside by Tribunal against which revenue is in appeal is far below the threshold limit fixed under Notification issued by CBDT, thus on the ground of monetary policy, revenue cannot proceed with this appeal: HCGST -Since both the SCNs and orders pertain to same tax period raising identical demand by two different officers of same jurisdiction, proceedings on SCNs are clubbed and shall be re-adjudicated by one proper officer: HCFormer Jharkhand HC Chief Justice, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra appointed as President of GST TribunalSale of building constructed on leasehold land - GST implicationI-T - If assessee is not charging VAT paid on purchase of goods & services to its P&L account i.e., not claiming it as expenditure, there is no requirement to treat refund of such VAT as income: ITATBengal Governor restricts entry of State FM and local police into Raj BhawanI-T - Interest received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 awarded by Court is capital receipt being integral part of enhanced compensation and is exempt u/s 10(37): ITATCops flatten camps of protesting students at Columbia UnivI-T - No additions are permitted on account of bogus purchases, if evidence submitted on purchase going into export and further details provided of sellers remaining uncontroverted: ITATTurkey stops all trades with Israel over GazaI-T- Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(a) cannot be invoked, where a necessary condition of the money received without consideration by assessee, has not been fulfilled: ITATGirl students advised by Pak college to keep away from political eventsI-T- As per settled position in law, cooperative housing society can claim deduction u/s 80P, if interest is earned on deposit of own funds in nationalised banks: ITATApple reports lower revenue despite good start of the yearI-T- Since difference in valuation is minor, considering specific exclusion provision benefit is granted to assessee : ITATHome-grown tech of thermal camera transferred to IndustryI-T - Presumption u/s 292C would apply only to person proceeded u/s 153A and not for assessee u/s 153C: ITATECI asks parties to cease registering voters for beneficiary-oriented schemes under guise of surveys
 
TNVAT- Whether clerical error and arithmetical error alone could fall within scope of rectification u/s 84 - No, says High Court

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, JAN 25, 2016: PETITIONER is a registered dealer under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Revised orders of assessment were passed for the years 2006-07 to 2010 -11 as against which petitioner did not file appeal, but filed Rectification Petitions under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the orders of revised assessment.

Assessing authority passed orders on these petitions re-confirming the demand of VAT holding that 'error apparent on the face of the record' used in Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, would apply only for correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes.

The Court found that the authority did not examine the merits of the Rectification Petitions but rejected them at the threshold on the ground of maintainability.

The Court referred to an earlier decision of the High Court wherein an identical issue was examined by the Court. While considering the scope of Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, the Court in that case held that Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006, does not state that it is only pertaining to correction of arithmetical errors or clerical errors. The Court further held that though Section 84 states that it is a power for rectification, in effect, the language employed in Section 84 would confer a power on the Authority to review its decision, if there is error apparent on the face of the record. The court observed that an order passed contrary to the provisions of the statute or 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. The Court ruled that the power under Section 84 is neither limited nor circumscribed as understood by the Authority in the impugned orders.

The Court held that the impugned orders do not address the real issue and that no endeavour was made by the Authority to examine as to whether the error pointed out by the petitioner was an error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the authority for passing fresh orders.

(See 2016-TIOL-149-HC-MAD-VAT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST