counter affidavit and it is not supported by any material. Therefore, this Court called upon the assessing officer to make available the copy of the letters given by the petitioner herein. In response to the aforesaid direction, the assessing officer immediately made available a copy of the petitioner's letters in which the petitioner himself has accepted the invisible loss ratio in his case at 5%. Of course, the petitioner's counsel would still insist that when a specific mandate has been issued by this Court that the assessing authority should examine the manufacturing process before arriving at invisible loss ratio and that the said mandate cannot be given go by by receiving a waiver letter from the petitioner. I am not in a position to accept this contention. It is always open to an assessee to waive a benefit granted to him under law. It is not as if some fundamental right is involved. Only if a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right is at stake, the same cannot be waived. The case on hand is not one such. Therefore, the respondent cannot be faulted for having acted on the petitioner's letters. In any event, there is no waiver of any right as such. The issue is regarding the working out of the exact ratio of invisible loss. The petitioner himself has come forward and given in writing that the invisible loss is at 5%. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent accepting the same cannot be said to suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. We are now concerned with exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. Only if there is error apparent on the face of the record, the authority will have the jurisdiction to even intervene. Such is not the case here. I find no ground to interfere. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
