9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (3) TMI 953 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxReview v/s rectification - Held that - Appeal allowed. It is well-known that the scope of rectification is different from the scope of review though sometimes they may overlap. In the present case, if the interpretation adopted by the High Court is to be accepted then the provision for review becomes totally redundant or otiose and there will be no difference between the power of review and power of rectification. As stated earlier, the scheme of the Amendment Act is that an application will have to be made to an authority within the specified date for review of the assessment order or such other order, as the case may be, for varying the same to bring it in terms with the Amendment Act while the period of making the order pursuant to rectification is coalesced with section 39 of the Amendment Act imposing certain limitations of time. Those limitations cannot be read into sub-section (2) of section 39 of the Amendment Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 39 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1995. 2. Validity and time frame for rectification and review under Section 39. 3. Applicability of Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 in conjunction with Section 39 of the Amendment Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 39 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1995: The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 39 of the Amendment Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the provisions of Section 39(2) and (3) should be read together and how they interact with Section 22 of the principal Act. The court noted that Section 39(2) allows for review applications to be made by September 30, 1995, to bring orders in conformity with the amended principal Act. Section 39(3) specifies that rectifications must be made within one year from the commencement of the section or within the period specified in Section 22, whichever is later. 2. Validity and Time Frame for Rectification and Review Under Section 39: The court emphasized that Section 39(2) does not prescribe a time limit for disposing of review applications, while Section 39(3) imposes a specific period for rectifications. The court clarified that the scope of rectification differs from that of review, and both powers can be exercised independently. The High Court's interpretation that both review and rectification should adhere to the same time frame was deemed incorrect. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interpretation would render the provision for review redundant. 3. Applicability of Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 in Conjunction with Section 39 of the Amendment Act: The court analyzed whether the proviso to Section 22, which allows rectification applications to be disposed of beyond the three-year period, applies to Section 39 of the Amendment Act. The Supreme Court concluded that the proviso to Section 22 does not apply to Section 39. The court stated that the period prescribed by Section 22(1) is three years, and the proviso does not provide any additional time limit. The court held that the orders of rectification under Section 22(1) could be made within three years, but the proviso allowing time beyond three years does not apply to Section 39. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, which had quashed the Tribunal's rectification orders as being beyond the prescribed time. The court restored the Tribunal's orders, emphasizing that the provisions for review and rectification under Section 39 of the Amendment Act are distinct and should be interpreted accordingly. The appeals were allowed, with no orders as to costs.
|
