1996 (9) TMI 568 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Rectification proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1977-78.

Analysis:
The dispute in this case revolves around rectification proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1977-78. The assessments under both Acts were made by a common order dated August 28, 1980, based on best judgment. Subsequently, the assessing authority initiated proceedings under section 22 of the Act, claiming that interest was inadvertently left out in the original assessment order. The notices issued under section 22 were contested by the assessee, but the rectification orders were upheld by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, and the Sales Tax Tribunal. The main contention raised by the assessee was that interest cannot be levied through rectification if it was not charged in the original assessment order.

The court carefully considered the submissions and held that the failure to charge interest in the original assessment order did not preclude the assessing authority from rectifying the mistake. The court emphasized that the liability to pay interest arises automatically by operation of law in case of default, and the amount of interest accrues from the due date of payment. The court referred to relevant provisions of the Act, highlighting that the assessing authority had the right to charge interest for default in payment of tax, even if it was not included in the original assessment order.

Furthermore, the court cited precedents to support its decision. In one case, it was held that failure to charge interest at the time of assessment constituted an error apparent on the face of the record and could be rectified through due process. Another case emphasized that rectification proceedings could be initiated for mistakes that are apparent on the record, including omissions to levy interest as required by law. The court clarified that the term "apparent" signifies mistakes that are self-evident and can be rectified within the statutory framework.

In conclusion, the court rejected the assessee's contention that the omission to levy interest could not be rectified under section 22 of the Act. The court found both revisions to be devoid of merit and dismissed them accordingly. No other points were raised before the court, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.