1970 (8) TMI 76 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of admitted turnover figure in application under section 30 of U.P. Sales Tax Act.
2. Entitlement of dealer to rectify clerical mistake in admitted tax figure.
3. Application for amendment beyond the period of limitation under section 30.
4. Interpretation of proviso to section 30 and section 9 regarding admitted tax and turnover.
5. Comparison with similar provisions in case law.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: The judgment addresses the rectification of the admitted turnover figure in an application under section 30 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The assessee sought to correct a mistake in the admitted turnover figure mentioned in the application. The court emphasized that if the mistake was genuine, the tax authorities should allow its rectification as a matter of justice. The rectification was viewed as reinstating the admitted turnover figure to its correct position as of the application date. The Sales Tax Officer and appellate authority's rejection of the rectification was deemed incorrect, and the Judge (Revisions) order was upheld.

Issue 2: The judgment deliberates on the entitlement of a dealer to rectify a clerical mistake in the admitted tax figure. The court highlighted that the proviso to section 30 requires proof of payment of the admitted tax but does not prohibit rectification of mistakes in the application contents within the prescribed time. The assessee's request for rectification was considered valid, especially since it did not seek to alter the tax payment beyond the application period. The department's stance was criticized as hypertechnical and incorrect.

Issue 3: The judgment examines the application for amendment beyond the period of limitation under section 30. It was argued that there is no specific limitation for rectifying mistakes in the application under section 30, provided the request is made before the application's disposal. The court clarified that the limitation period of thirty days for section 30 applications does not apply to rectification requests. The department's objection based on the limitation period was deemed unjustified.

Issue 4: The interpretation of the proviso to section 30 and section 9 regarding admitted tax and turnover was discussed. The court compared the wording of the two provisions and cited case law to support the assessee's right to mention a different admitted turnover figure in the application under section 30. The judgment emphasized that rectification requests for mistakes in application contents should be allowed before the application's hearing, without being bound by the figures mentioned in the return.

Issue 5: The judgment compared the case with similar provisions in case law, specifically referencing Ghanshyam Dass Balmukund v. State of U.P. and Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) I, Sales Tax. The court highlighted that the assessee can vary the admitted turnover figure at the time of filing an appeal and can furnish proof of admitted tax payment before the hearing. These principles were deemed applicable to applications under section 30, supporting the assessee's right to rectify mistakes in the application contents.

In conclusion, the judgment ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the rectification of the admitted turnover figure and rejecting the department's objections. The court emphasized the importance of justice and the assessee's right to rectify genuine mistakes in the application under section 30, irrespective of the figures mentioned in the return.