1971 (8) TMI 198 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Rectification of error apparent on the face of the record by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
- Scope and power of rectification under section 55(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
- Duty of the Tribunal to rectify errors not argued or presented by the parties.
- Application of the decision in Khosla & Co. case to exclude turnover from taxable turnover.
- Tribunal's refusal to rectify the order based on the Khosla's case.
- Petitioner's right to compel the Tribunal to rectify an error.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras dealt with the petitioner's grievance against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the exclusion of a turnover from taxable turnover. The petitioner sought rectification of the order based on the decision in Khosla & Co. case, which was rendered after the Tribunal's original order. The Court examined the scope and power of rectification under section 55(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, emphasizing that an error apparent on the face of the record must be rectified within three years from the date of the order. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal is empowered to rectify errors that are argued before it and remain on record, but it is not obligated to investigate issues not raised by the parties.

Regarding the application of the Khosla's case to exclude turnover, the Court noted that the Tribunal did not consider the facts related to sales in the course of import as this argument was never presented before it. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's duty is to decide based on arguments presented by the parties and not to conduct a roving inquiry. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for rectification as there was no error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court further stated that the petitioner cannot compel the Tribunal to rectify an error based solely on the decision in the Khosla's case. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision not to rectify the order was correct as there was no duty to correct an error that did not exist. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the Tribunal's role is limited to rectifying errors that are apparent on the face of the record, based on arguments presented by the parties.