JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in TIN No.33703982381/2014-15, dated 17.08.2021 and quash the same as it is unlawful and invalid and further direct the respondent to consider the rectification petition, dated 09-04-2021, and pass appropriate orders in all perspective on its merits after providing an opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with the Section 84 of the TNVAT Act.)

1. Prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in TIN No. 33703982381/2014-15, dated 17.08.2021 and quash the same as it is unlawful and invalid and further direct the respondent to consider the rectification petition, dated 09-04-2021, and pass appropriate orders in all perspective on its merits after providing an opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with Section 84 of the TNVAT Act.

2. Insofar as the Assessment Year 2014-15 is concerned, after having the reversal of ITC, an assessment order, dated 31.01.2020, was passed by the respondent against the petitioner.

3. On seeing that order, the petitioner has noticed that the ITC reversed to the extent of Rs.66,362/- has already been done, and therefore, the equal amount shall be taken, as if that, the tax has been paid, therefore, the question of revised ITC of the said amount does not arise. Hence, according to the petitioner, it is an error apparent on the face of the record, therefore it has to be rectified.

4. In order to rectify the same, the petitioner filed a rectification petition on 09.04.2021, under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act (in short 'the Act'), however, the said rectification petition has been rejected through the impugned order, dated 17.08.2021. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Heard Mr.R.D.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has taken this Court to the reason cited by the respondent in rejecting the plea of the petitioner in the application filed under Section 84 of the Act, through the impugned order, dated 17.08.2021.

6. It seems that the petitioner claimed that the ITC to the extent of Rs.66,362/- already been reversed on purchase in Form-1 return. Therefore, the revised ITC amount of purchase has to be taken on tax paid amount for computing balance amount under VAT in the revision order, dated 31.01.2020, however, since the same has not been taken into account, it was pointed out by the petitioner, through his application under Section 84 of the Act, as referred to above, however, the same has been rejected by the respondent, by citing the reason that, when a notice, dated 19.10.2020 was issued as a pre-revision notice, the same has not been responded and the dealer/petitioner did not even appear before the respondent, and therefore, by taking into account the available records, the order of assessment has been passed on 31.01.2020, therefore, at this juncture, there is no question of any error apparent on the face of the record in the said assessment order, therefore, on that ground, the petition filed under Section 84 of the Act, by the petitioner/dealer need not be entertained or accepted, therefore, it was rejected.

7. The said reason cited by the respondent in the order impugned, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is an untenable reason, therefore, on that ground, he seeks indulgence of this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

8. Per contra, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, would submit that, when pre-revision notice was issued on 19.10.2020, it is duty-bound on the part of the petitioner to appear or to give a reply to the respondent, as the petitioner had neither chosen to give any reply nor appear before the respondent, he had no other option except to proceed and finalise the assessment order, based on the available records, thereby, the ITC