2010 (2) TMI 1071 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether exhibit P5 order is liable to be rectified under section 66(3) of the KVAT Act? Held that - The question as to whether exhibit P5 order is liable to be rectified under section 66(3) of the KVAT Act, can only be answered in the affirmative. It is evident that the rate fixed in exhibit P5 is not the rate contemplated under the statute which was in force, at any point of time. Therefore it can safely be held that fixation of rate was due to a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Hence the same is liable to be rectified under section 66(3) of the KVAT Act.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against exhibit P6 notice under section 66(3) of KVAT Act for revising compounding rate.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer running a granite crushing unit, challenged exhibit P6 notice proposing to revise compounding rate granted under section 8(b) of KVAT Act. The notice indicated a mistake in fixing the rate at Rs. 25,000 instead of Rs. 1,50,000 based on Finance Act, 2009. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of section 8(b) and the subsequent amendments proposed by the State Government through the Finance Bill, 2009. The petitioner argued that the rate fixed in exhibit P5 was based on the Finance Bill and circular exhibit P4, and hence not liable for rectification. However, the court analyzed the statutory provisions and amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2009 to determine the correct compounding rate applicable to the petitioner.

The court examined the provisions of section 8(b) of the KVAT Act and the subsequent amendments proposed by the Finance Bill, 2009, which reduced the compounding rates for granite crushing machines. The petitioner contended that the rate fixed in exhibit P5 could not be rectified midway through the financial year due to the enforcement of the Finance Act. The court distinguished this case from previous judgments and clarified that the proposal in the Finance Bill did not translate into statutory amendments. Therefore, the rectification sought through exhibit P6 was not an enhancement but a correction of the mistakenly fixed compounding rate.

The petitioner also argued that circular exhibit P4 provided legal enforceability and decisions based on it could not be revised. However, the court determined that exhibit P4 was operational instructions for implementing the Finance Bill proposals and did not have statutory force. The court held that exhibit P5 order, not being in line with the prevailing statute, was a mistake apparent on record and thus subject to rectification under section 66(3) of the KVAT Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition challenging the exhibit P6 notice for revising the compounding rate.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the interpretation of statutory provisions, amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2009, and the rectification of mistakenly fixed compounding rates for granite crushing units under the KVAT Act. The court's analysis emphasizes the distinction between statutory amendments and operational instructions, ultimately upholding the rectification proposed in exhibit P6 notice under section 66(3) of the KVAT Act.