9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle II, Jaipur (hereinafter called the C.T.O.), assessed the non-petitioner firm for the assessment year 1964-65 by his assessment order dated 10th January, 1967, and imposed tax on the implied sale of containers of edible oil which was sold by the non-petitioner dealer to the various purchasers, who had purchased the edible oil from the non-petitioner firm, i.e., non-petitioner No. 1. The non-petitioner, being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 10th January, 1967, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-I), Jaipur, who, on 17th August, 1968, accepted the appeal and quashed the levy of sales tax holding that there was no implied sale of the containers. After the said order of the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue took note of section 5 of the Validating Act of 1969, which provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority to the contrary, any assessment, reassessment or collection of any tax in respect of sales of gunny bags and other packing materials and containers made, any action taken or thing done in relation to such assessment, reassessment or collection under the provisions of the principal Act before the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be as valid and effective as if such assessment, reassessment, collection or action or thing has been made, taken or done under the principal Act as amended by this Act and, accordingly, all acts, proceedings or things done or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sthan Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1969, the tax of Rs. 1,220.22 refunded on the sale of tins amounting to Rs. 20,337.10 in pursuance of the appeal order is now recoverable from the dealer for which a fresh demand notice may be issued. Demand notice for Rs. 1,220.22 may be issued." It may be pointed out that after the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 17th June, 1968, the assessing authority's original order got merged into the Deputy Commissioner's order and so the assessing authority was not competent in law to rectify this order by his order dated 26th August, 1970. We are fortified in our conclusion by the two decisions of the Madras High Court, namely, Ceylon Thowfeck Hotel v. State of Madras[1961] 12 S.T.C. 238. and A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s subsequently rendered invalid by an amendment of the law having retrospective operation, shall, for the purpose of this section, be construed as involving a mistake apparent from the record. Indisputably, the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was valid prior to the Amending and Validation Act was enacted, but by virtue of the retrospective operation of the Amendment and Validating Act, the Deputy Commissioner's order was rendered invalid. That will obviously amount to a mistake apparent from the record. For rectification of such a mistake, the only remedy was to invoke or take recourse to section 17 of the Act. No such action has been taken for rectification of the mistake. On the other hand, the assessing authority has sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
