Tvl.Nagappa Auto Spare Parts vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the respondent ought to have disposed of the petitioner's application dated 28.11.2017, filed under Section 84 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, seeking rectification of the assessment order dated 11.07.2016, on merits and in accordance with law. The Court noted that the respondent had received the application but had failed to dispose of it. The Court found no prejudice to the respondent in considering the application. Therefore, the Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application, pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, and afford the petitioner sufficient opportunity, including a personal hearing, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The issue of whether there was indeed an "error apparent on the face of the record" was not decided by the High Court, as the matter was remitted for consideration by the respondent.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Nagappa Auto Spare Parts, represented by its Legal Heir R.Mathivanan, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent, The State Tax Officer, to consider their representation dated 28.11.2017. This representation was filed under Section 84 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, seeking rectification of an assessment order dated 11.07.2016, passed under Section 27(2) of the same Act. The petitioner contended that the assessment order contained an error apparent on the face of the record, as they had effected purchases only from legally registered dealers covered by proper invoices, which formed the basis for claiming input tax credit. Despite filing the rectification application on 28.11.2017, it remained unconsidered by the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent has a duty to consider the petitioner's application dated 28.11.2017, filed under Section 84 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, seeking rectification of the assessment order dated 11.07.2016? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order contained an "error apparent on the face of the record" because their input tax credit claims were based on purchases from legally registered dealers with proper invoices. They asserted that their application for rectification, filed on 28.11.2017, had not been considered by the respondent. Respondent's contention: The learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the respondent had received the petitioner's application for rectification. She conceded that the respondent ought to have disposed of the application on merits and in accordance with law, but it had not been done. She further stated that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the application were disposed of.