9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No. 38 of 1992 arising out of an assessment order purporting to be under section 11B, RST Act and application No. 55 of 1992 arising out of an assessment order purporting to be under section 11B, RST Act read with section 9(2), Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("the CST Act" for short) and arise out of a common order dated September 27, 1991 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (as the Rajasthan Tax Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, was then known) accepting appeal Nos. 37/87/ST/SM and 38/97/ST/SM of the present respondent upholding the common order of the Deputy Commissioner (DC) (Appeals), Kotah dated March 9, 1987 in appeal Nos. 17/RST/86-87 and 3/CST/86-87 accepting the appeals of the respondent and setting aside the orders dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such the rectification was barred by time. The order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld by the Board by its impugned order. 5.. In the applications for revision the following two questions of law have been framed: "(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order correcting the interest amount can be termed as rectification order under section 17 of the Act? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the liability to pay interest is automatic and the calculation is only mathematical? 6.. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders in question dated May 13, 1986 were not orders of rectification but original orders under section 11B, RST Act; that the liability to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of interest could not be quantified till the tax was paid and as such it could not be specified in the certificate of recovery. 9.1. This case is distinguishable on facts from the present case. The dates on which the tax became due and the dates on which the tax was paid are both known. The rate of interest is also known. The amount of interest has also been quantified. The question is that if the amount has been incorrectly quantified whether it could be rectified without being hit by the limitation provided for in section 17, RST Act? The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance in deciding this question. 10.. In Bul Chand v. State of Rajasthan [1987] 65 STC 6 (Raj) cited by the learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was charged in the original assessment order and there was mistake in the calculation thereof................it is held that the assessing authority is entitled to pass an independent order under section 11B without taking recourse of the provisions of section 17, if in the original assessment the interest was not levied at all. If some interest was charged in the assessment order and there is a mistake in the calculation thereof then only the provision of section 17 can be invoked. This is however subject to the period of limitation. The provisions of section 12 are not applicable in respect of levy of interest and they are confined only to the escapement of the tax only........" (Emphasis* added). 13.. This ruling applies with full fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
