1971 (8) TMI 202 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to entertain the application for rectification.
2. Assessment under the best judgment method under the Madras General Sales Tax Act for the year 1964-65.
3. Refusal by authorities to rectify alleged mistake in the original assessment order.
4. Failure to produce material to support rectification application.
5. Comparison with a similar case where evidence was produced to rectify a mistake.
6. Merger of original assessment order with the final appellate order.
7. Inability to seek rectification of the original order post-merger.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to entertain an application for rectification of the assessment made under the best judgment method. The petitioner claimed that a turnover related to inter-State purchase of cotton should not have been included in the assessable turnover. Despite various appeals and revisions, authorities refused to rectify the alleged mistake, citing lack of material provided by the petitioner to support the rectification application. The court emphasized that in cases of best judgment assessments, rectification is not easily permissible unless cogent material is presented by the aggrieved party to revise the order. The petitioner's failure to produce material at any stage of appeal or revision led to the dismissal of the rectification request.

A comparison was drawn with a similar case where evidence was produced to rectify a mistake successfully. In that case, the court was provided with materials to consider the error apparent on the record. However, in the present case, the petitioner consistently failed to discharge the duty of satisfying the authorities that the transactions were inter-State and not liable under the Sales Tax Act. Additionally, the court highlighted that since the original assessment order was modified by the appellate authority, seeking rectification against the original order post-merger was deemed futile.

The court clarified that once the original order merges with the appellate order, any attempt to rectify the original order becomes futile. Since no error was found on the record by the authorities and the rectification application targeted the non-existent original order, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no public duty on the part of the second respondent to act as requested by the petitioner. The petition was ultimately dismissed, and no costs were awarded.