Case Law Details
Ayappa Pharma Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that rejection of rectification application u/s. 161 of the TNGST Act without providing detailed reasons for the rejection not justified. Hence, proceedings pursuant to DRC-07 kept in abeyance.
Facts- The challenge to the writ petition is the order of assessment and the DRC-07 notice and the order passed in the rectification application. The petitioner has mainly contested that the order of assessment, dated 02.01.2024 had been made without giving opportunity to the petitioner based upon which the notice of DRC-07 was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner had taken an application for rectification of the error that had been committed by the petitioner to file the assessment and the same had been rejected without affording an opportunity and much more without assigning any reason, whatsoever.
Conclusion- Held that the petitioner has pointed out an error in his return, which he seeks to rectify for passing the revised order of assessment. The said reasons had not been considered by the first respondent and therefore, the impugned order dated 04.06.2024 rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for rectification alone is hereby set aside and remitted back to the first respondent for passing a fresh order after considering the reasons and pass appropriate orders. If the authorities decide not to entertain the said request, he shall give detailed reasons as to why the said order is being made. Further proceedings, pursuant to DRC- O7 notice dated 02.01.2024 shall be kept in abeyance.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The challenge to the writ petition is the order of assessment and the DRC-07 notice and the order passed in the rectification application.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the order of assessment, dated 02.01.2024 had been made without giving opportunity to the petitioner based upon which the notice of DRC-07 was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner had taken an application for rectification of the error that had been committed by the petitioner to file the assessment and the same had been rejected without affording an opportunity and much more without assigning any reason, whatsoever.
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department would tly contend that the petitioner having filed the rectification application seeking to rectify the earlier order, dated 02.01.2024, the writ petition challenging the same ought not to have entertained.
4. The authority is vested with the power to reject the rectification application, if the reason stated in the rectification application, is not satisfactory and the first respondent had rightly rejected the rectification application and therefore, there is no indulgence may be shown to the petitioner in the present case.
5. I have carefully considered the submission made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the fact that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned except to make the statement that no satisfactorily reasons attached to the annexure had been made out, the first respondent had not given any reasons. Section 161 of the TNGST Act indicates that when such an application is made and if no error on the face of record had been made out to the applications for rejection are to be rejected.
7. In the present case, the petitioner has pointed out an error in his return, which he seeks to rectify for passing the revised order of assessment. The said reasons had not been considered by the first respondent and therefore, the impugned order dated 04.06.2024 rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for rectification alone is hereby set aside and remitted back to the first respondent for passing a fresh order after considering the reasons and pass appropriate orders. If the authorities decide not to entertain the said request, he shall give detailed reasons as to why the said order is being made. Further proceedings, pursuant to DRC- O7 notice dated 02.01.2024 shall be kept in abeyance.
8.The leaned Counsel for the petitioner seeks an opportunity of hearing before the first respondent, since proviso also provides such personal hearing, the first respondent shall also provide an opportunity to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed by the petitioner within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9.With the above said observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Author Bio
