1988 (8) TMI 404 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Writ petition filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus
- Rectification of an error apparent on the face of the order of assessment
- Exemption from liability to sales tax
- Jurisdiction of the second respondent under section 55 of the Act
- Duty of the second respondent to exercise authority under section 55
- Referral to approach the first respondent under section 32 of the Act
- Legality of the order of the second respondent

Analysis:

The writ petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings and quash the order dated 22nd March, 1982. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, sold a Standard-20 ambulance van to Agarwal Relief Trust. Subsequently, an exemption notification was issued by the Government, but the petitioner was not aware of it at the time of assessment. The petitioner requested a revision of the assessment, but the second respondent referred them to file a revision petition under section 32 of the Act. The Court found an error apparent on the face of the record of the assessment for the year 1974-75, which warranted rectification under section 55 of the Act within five years from the date of assessment. The second respondent's failure to rectify the order and referring the petitioner to the first respondent for relief was deemed illegal by the Court.

The Court held that the second respondent had the authority under section 55 of the Act to rectify the error apparent on the face of the assessment order. The petitioner's request for rectification made within the statutory period of five years from the date of assessment was found to be valid. As the second respondent did not rectify the order and instead directed the petitioner to file a revision petition under section 32 of the Act, the Court deemed this action as incorrect and illegal. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order of the second respondent and allowing the writ petition.

In conclusion, the Court found that the second respondent's refusal to exercise the powers conferred under section 55 of the Act and instructing the petitioner to approach the first respondent under section 32 was unlawful. The Court granted the writ petition, emphasizing the duty of the second respondent to rectify the error apparent on the face of the assessment order within the prescribed statutory period. As a result, the order of the second respondent was quashed, and the petitioner's request for rectification was upheld.