2016 (4) TMI 92 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Power and jurisdiction of Commissioner to amend eligibility certificate - Section 4A was introduced in order to promote industrialisation in the State of Uttar Pradesh by introducing a scheme by granting certain subsidies/exemptions/concessions in the rate of tax - A typographical error in the eligibility certificate with regard to an item known as printing of plastic material - Held that - Section 10(2) of the Act provides that where any person is aggrieved by an order granting or refusing to grant a eligibility certificate under section 4A could file an appeal under section 10(2) of the Act before the Tribunal. This provision clearly indicates that an assessee, if aggrieved by the grant of an eligibility certificate could file an appeal and that the Tribunal was competent to modify the eligibility certificate, namely, that if the eligibility certificate contained some errors, the same could be rectified in an appeal by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal was competent to amend the eligibility certificate, then there is no reason why clerical and arithmetical errors, which are apparent on the face of the record for which no debate exists could not be corrected by the Commissioner under section 4A(3) of the Act agreeing with the decision of the learned single Judge in the case of Mansarovar Bottling Company 999 (7) TMI 635 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT(All) . - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Commissioner to amend eligibility certificate under section 4A(3) of the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including quashing of orders and directions related to assessment years and eligibility certificates. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of plastic materials, applied for concessions under section 4A of the Act. An eligibility certificate was granted with retrospective effect, specifying the goods eligible for tax exemptions. Subsequently, discrepancies were noted in the eligibility certificate regarding the type of goods for which exemptions were claimed. The assessing authority sought permission for reassessment based on these discrepancies. The petitioner challenged these proceedings through writ petitions, highlighting typographical errors and seeking corrections in the eligibility certificate.

The central issue revolved around the Commissioner's jurisdiction to amend the eligibility certificate under section 4A(3) of the Act. The relevant provision empowered the Commissioner to correct legal or factual errors in the certificate. A previous judgment clarified that such corrections were limited to clerical or arithmetical errors that were evident from the record. The court noted that if the Tribunal had the authority to modify eligibility certificates through appeals, the Commissioner should also be able to rectify obvious errors. Therefore, the court agreed with the previous decision and held that the Commissioner could correct clerical or arithmetical errors in the eligibility certificate.

Consequently, the court found that the Commissioner had erred in denying the power to amend the eligibility certificate. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the petitioner was allowed to appeal against any reassessment orders without concerns about the limitation period. The court also directed a stay on recovery proceedings pending the Commissioner's decision on the application for correction.

In conclusion, the court upheld the petitioner's contentions regarding the Commissioner's jurisdiction to rectify errors in the eligibility certificate and provided appropriate directions for further proceedings, including reassessment appeals and recovery actions.