1993 (9) TMI 326 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the orders dated December 24, 1986, and April 26, 1990, by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal.
2. Error in passing the assessment orders dated November 30, 1979, and August 18, 1981.
3. Impact of formal defect in the issuance of notice on the entire liability.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the Orders by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal:
The revision petitions challenge the orders dated December 24, 1986, and April 26, 1990. The Tribunal concluded that the assessments were framed based on notices issued under section 7(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, and no notice under section 10(1)(b) was given to the assessee. The Tribunal's order was not challenged in revision under section 15 of the Act, leading to the dismissal of rectification applications. The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 17 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, referencing the decision in Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50, which states that if a matter involves arguable points or two opinions, it is not a case of mistake apparent from the record.

2. Error in Passing the Assessment Orders:
The assessment orders dated November 30, 1979, and August 18, 1981, were scrutinized. The appellate authority had directed the assessing authority to issue notices in accordance with the law, either under section 10(1)(b) or section 12 of the Act. However, the assessing authority issued a notice under section 7(1) instead. The Court found that the error in the Tribunal's order was clerical, not affecting the merit of the judgment, and thus there was no error on the face of the record.

3. Impact of Formal Defect in Issuance of Notice:
The Court examined whether a formal defect in the issuance of notice could quash the entire liability. It was determined that no notice under section 10 was issued by the assessing authority as directed by the appellate authority. The notice under section 7(1) could not substitute for a notice under section 10, as the latter stage comes only after the former is served and the return is filed or not filed. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the liability due to the lack of notice under section 10.

Conclusion:
The Court rejected the revision petitions, holding that the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in its decisions and that there was no error in the Tribunal's orders affecting the merits. The absence of proper notice under section 10, as directed by the appellate authority, validated the Tribunal's decision to quash the liability. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.