Tvl. Sri Jaya Jothi Co,P.LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT-Ii)

Held

The Court held that the respondent erred in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. The Court found that Section 84 clearly empowers either an Assessing Authority or a Revising Authority to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record at any time within five years from the date of the order. In this case, the application was filed within the stipulated five-year period. The Court reasoned that the respondent should have entertained the application on its merits and decided the matter, rather than outright rejecting it on the ground that an appeal should have been filed. The Court concluded that the reason cited in the impugned order for rejection was unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the respondent for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 18.03.2019 strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 84 of the TNVAT Act and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sri Jaya Jothi Cop., Ltd., an assessee under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act), was assessed for the period 2016-2017. The respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (CT-II), reversed input tax credit and levied interest under Section 42(3) of the TNVAT Act via an order dated 07.06.2018. The petitioner, believing errors were present in this assessment order, filed a representation on 18.03.2019 under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act to rectify these errors. The respondent rejected this representation, stating that an appeal should have been filed within thirty days against the assessment order, and a Section 84 application was not maintainable. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent erred in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, which deals with the power to rectify errors apparent on the face of the record, on the ground that an appeal should have been filed against the assessment order? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 84 of the TNVAT Act permits an assessee to file an application for rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record at any stage, either before the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the respondent should have entertained and decided the application on merits, and rejecting it solely because an appeal could have been filed is contrary to the scope of Section 84. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that if the petitioner had a grievance with the assessment order, the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal under the Act. Since an appeal remedy was available, the petitioner filed a Section 84 application knowing there was no apparent error on the face of the record. Thus, the respondent's rejection of the application as not entertainable under Section 84 was justified, and the petitioner should be advised to file an appeal.