IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.11.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.Nos.18553 and 18557 of 2021

and

W.M.P.Nos.19795 and 19798 of 2021

(Through Video Conferencing)

S.Sengodan

... Petitioner in both W.Ps.

Vs

1. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST),

Salem Camp Office,

Coimbatore.

2. The State Tax Officer,

Town Circle,

Attur.

... Respondents in both W.Ps.

Common Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in

Na.Ka.No.225/2021/A1 and Na.Ka.No.226/2021/A1 and quash the

impugned Return Memo dated 06.08.2021 passed therein and

further direct the 1^st respondent to take the appeal on its

file and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Raveendran

For Respondents: Mr.D.Ravichander

Government Counsel

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government counsel for the respondents.

2. A short point that arises for consideration is whether

the office of the 1^st respondent was justified in returning the

appeal filed by the petitioner against the rectification order

dated 29.04.2021?

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned memo dated

06.08.2021, returning the appeal filed by the petitioner

against the rectification order dated 29.04.2021 passed by the

2^nd respondent under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added

Tax Act, 2006.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had

earlier suffered assessment orders on 19.03.2020 for the

Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Under this

circumstances, the petitioner had filed an application for

rectification of the mistakes under Section 84 of the Tamil

Nadu Value Added Tax Act which came to be disposed by an order

dated 29.04.2021.

5. The original assessment order passed on 19.03.2020

thus stood merged with the rectification order dated

29.04.2021. The petitioner therefore preferred an appeal

before the Appellate Commissioner under Sections 51 and 53 of

the TNVAT Act, 2006. By the impugned return memo dated

06.08.2021, the office of the 1^st respondent has stated that

the appeal is not maintainable as time barred.

6. Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value-Added Tax Act,

2006, allows rectification of mistake of an order passed by an

Assessing Authority, the Appellate Authority or the Revisional

Authority, including the Appellate Tribunal which passed the

order under the aforesaid section, ''rectification of

mistake'' can be allowed on “error apparent on the face of the

record”.

7. Under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, a

review of a judgement is permissible and the Court can rectify

an “error apparent on the face of the record” in the

judgment/decree passed by it. Order 47 Rule 7 Civil Procedure

Code, which has codified the procedure also makes it clear

that an order of the court rejecting the application shall not

be appealable. An order granting an application for review may

be objected to at once by way of an appeal from the order

granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or

order finally passed or made in suit.

8.

The effect of an order under review of the

judgement/decree results in vacation of the original

judgement/decree which was earlier passed. (see also the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sen vs

State of Bihar, [(1975) 1 SCC 774].

9. In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held observed as follows:-

“The distinction is clear. Entertaining

an application for review does not vacate the

decree sought to be reviewed. It is only when

the application for review has been allowed

that the decree under review is vacated.

Thereaf