1960 (1) TMI 19 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Application for rectification under section 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal had earlier dismissed a Revision Application, where two main contentions were raised. Firstly, it was argued that the applicant was not given a reasonable opportunity by the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax during the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had requested multiple adjournments, and although the final one was not granted, the applicant's pleader still appeared before the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal concluded that since the office was open on the day in question, fixing the hearing on a possible holiday did not deny the applicant an opportunity. Additionally, it was emphasized that the Assistant Collector had been lenient in granting adjournments, providing ample chances for the applicant to present evidence. Secondly, it was contended that the authorities were obligated to delve into the merits of the applicant's case. However, the Tribunal clarified that there was no statutory obligation for such an inquiry, and the applicant's representative acknowledged this fact.

2. For a rectification application to succeed, the applicant must demonstrate a mistake on record that requires correction. The High Court emphasized that a mistake apparent from the record must be glaringly obvious, easily discernible without elaborate arguments. Since only two points were raised before the Tribunal, and no objections were made to the Tribunal's handling of those points, it was questioned whether a clear mistake existed. The Court highlighted that if a point was not raised before the authority, it is unfair to assume an apparent mistake. The record indicated that the applicant had been given sufficient opportunities to present their case, with the Assistant Collector facilitating the process. It was noted that the applicant failed to capitalize on these opportunities, making it unreasonable to claim a rectifiable mistake at this stage.

3. During the hearing of the rectification application, the applicant's representative reiterated the same submissions made before the Tribunal previously, offering no new arguments. Considering the lack of merit in the rectification application and the absence of additional submissions, the High Court ruled against the applicant, dismissing the application with costs amounting to Rs. 45. The Court concluded that based on the record and the proceedings, there was no valid ground for rectification, and the application failed to meet the necessary criteria for correction under the law.