Tvl.Palaniappa Motors PVT LTD vs. The State Tax Officer (Main)

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petitions based on the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader. The Court recorded that the respondent would pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's petition filed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act within 12 weeks. The respondent was directed to pass an order on the petitioner's rectification petition within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. No costs were awarded. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the alleged errors in the original order or the proper consideration of their objections, as the disposal was based on the respondent's undertaking to decide the rectification petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Palaniappa Motors Private Limited, an authorized dealer of Hero MotoCorp Ltd, filed six writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitions challenged orders passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer (Main), Dindigul (Rural) Assessment Circle, dated 30.05.2019, concerning tax periods from 2010-11 to 2015-16. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed without properly considering their objections filed on 04.06.2018, following a notice dated 15.03.2018 to re-open completed assessments. The petitioner had subsequently filed a petition dated 01.07.2019 under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act), seeking rectification of errors in the 30.05.2019 orders. The grievance was that no order was passed on this rectification petition despite several reminders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent is bound to rectify the errors in the order dated 30.05.2019 by invoking Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, given that the petitioner's objections were allegedly not considered properly. (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 84 of the TNVAT Act empowers the respondent to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. They asserted that since the impugned order was passed without considering their objections, the respondent has a duty to rectify the committed errors under this provision. Respondent's contention: The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner had sought a personal hearing on 19.03.2021 to submit important documents. The respondent was about to grant this opportunity but the petitioner approached the High Court. The respondent requested 12 weeks' time to pass the rectification order.