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)