Tvl.Thendral Motors vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Thendral Motors, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer. This order rejected the petitioner's application for rectification of an earlier order dated 08.01.2024 concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The respondent's order stated that Section 161 of the TNGST Act/CGST Act is applicable only for rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record, and the taxpayer's application was for filing documents already submitted and issues discussed in the adjudication order. The petitioner argued that the rejection order was non-speaking and lacked reasoning, similar to a previous case, Tvl. Podhigai Motors vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palayamkottai. The respondent contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Appellate Authority and that the rectification application was rightly rejected.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's rectification application was unsustainable. The Court found that, similar to the case of Tvl. Podhigai Motors, the order was passed without providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing and also lacked proper reasoning. The Court observed that both these essential procedural aspects were absent in the impugned order. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2024. The case was remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court expected the respondent to dispose of the rectification application within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's rectification application under Section 161 of the TNGST Act/CGST Act, 2017, is legally sustainable when it was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing and lacks sufficient reasoning? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order rejecting their rectification application was non-speaking and lacked proper reasoning, citing the precedent set in Tvl. Podhigai Motors vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palayamkottai, where a similar order was interfered with. They argued that the respondent failed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing the order. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the Writ Petition was devoid of merits as the petitioner possessed an alternative remedy before the Appellate Authority. They further submitted that there was no scope for rectification of the assessment order passed on 08.01.2024 and that the rectification application was correctly rejected by the impugned order dated 11.06.2024.