2019 (6) TMI 938 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification of Mistakes - validity of assessment order u/s 9 2 of CST Act, 1956 - petitioner submit that it is in order to avoid the scenario of remand from the higher Appellate Forums, which has been suffered by the assessee relating to the assessment year 2006-07, the petitioner filed the rectification application under Section 69 of the KVAT Act seeking rectification of the reassessment order before the Assessing Officer to examine each individual transactions - HELD THAT - It is only an apprehension of the petitioner that the assessment order passed by the KAT relating to the assessment year 2006-07 would be repeated for the assessment year 2012-13. It is trite law that Section 69 of the KVAT Act can be invoked only with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The phrase mistake apparent from the record cannot be enlarged to re-examine/re-analyze/re-visit the concluded issues based on the factual aspects, which were before the authority at the time of passing of the assessment order. The scope of the rectification of mistakes is limited. The request of the assessee to re-examine the individual transaction would not come within the ambit of error apparent on the face of the record. It is the subjective perception of the assessee. The First Appellate Authority has the co-extensive jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority in as much as examination of the documents as now requested by the petitioner. Hence, in the circumstances, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order and endorsement impugned - petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal in accordance with law against the order impugned.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment Order under CST Act and KVAT Act challenged for tax periods April 2012 to March 2013, seeking denovo re-assessment proceedings.

Analysis:

1. Reassessment Proceedings History:
The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in trading, challenged the Assessment Order under the CST Act and KVAT Act for the tax periods April 2012 to March 2013. The petitioner contended that previous reassessment proceedings for the periods 2006-07 to 2009-10 had varying outcomes. While exemptions were accepted for some periods, a demand was created for the period 2006-07. Despite challenges and remands, the Assessing Authority failed to properly consider the petitioner's claims and documents, leading to the current challenge.

2. Request for Denovo Re-assessment:
The petitioner sought denovo re-assessment proceedings for the impugned period, emphasizing the need for a well-reasoned order based on the details and documents provided. The petitioner highlighted a total of 150 transactions made during the assessment year 2012-13, emphasizing the importance of individual transaction scrutiny by the Assessing Officer to avoid mistakes and ensure justice.

3. Rectification Application Rejection:
The petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 69 of the KVAT Act to rectify the reassessment order, urging the Assessing Officer to examine each individual transaction before determining additional tax liability. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the application without providing valid reasons, leading to the argument that non-examination of individual transactions amounted to a mistake apparent from the record.

4. Legal Arguments and Justifications:
The Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued for rectification based on the need to avoid remands from higher Appellate Forums and ensure a thorough examination of individual transactions. In contrast, the Additional Government Advocate representing the revenue justified the Assessing Officer's decision, stating that re-examining documents would constitute a review not permissible under the law.

5. Court's Decision and Reasoning:
After hearing arguments from both parties and examining the relevant provisions of Section 69 of the KVAT Act, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court emphasized that rectification of mistakes under the Act was limited to errors apparent from the record and could not be used to re-analyze concluded issues. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer's scope for rectification was restricted, and the petitioner's request did not fall within the ambit of rectifiable mistakes. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for interference with the order and endorsed the dismissal of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to file a statutory appeal within a specified timeframe.