9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1958 (for short the State Sales Tax Act ) on July 9, 1991 for the period from October 23, 1987 to November 9, 1988 (annexure B). The petitioner had claimed a set-off of tax at the rate of 2.5 per cent under section 8(1)(a) of the State Sales Tax Act under Notification No. A-3-47-86-ST-V(2) dated January 8, 1990 on fully tax paid purchases of cotton-seeds, but the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No. 2) allowed the set-off at the rate of 2 per cent only. Being aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the petitioner filed a revision application under section 39(1) of the State Sales Tax Act before the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore, and order was passed on October 25, 1991 in the said revision (annexure C). The revisional authority following the decision dated August 27, 1990 of the division Bench of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, passed in Appeal No. 134-I/ 89 in the case of Atmaram and Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, held that the petitioner was entitled to set-off of tax at the rate of 2.5 per cent and difference of 0.5 per cent was allowed. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter the petitioner received a notice dated January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5.. The sole question in this case for consideration before me is that whether respondent No. 1 had any jurisdiction and power under section 45(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 to review and/or revive the order passed by him on October 25, 1991? 6.. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that section 45 of the State Sales Tax Act only envisaged the rectification of mistake apparent from the record. The parameters of section 45 are well-defined by a series of judicial decisions and the said section permits the correction of only such mistakes which are apparent from the record and a mere change of opinion does not amount to a mistake much less a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 45 of the State Sales Tax Act. While allowing the review application, the reviewing authority cannot take a different view under the garb of section 45 and the impugned order is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Master Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360, in which it has been held as under: Held, on a construction of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further relied on the decision of Indian Iron Steel Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Sector 4, Kanpur [1973] 32 STC 95 in which it has been held by the Allahabad High Court as under: Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, has a limited scope. It cannot be used to rectify every type of mistake. The jurisdiction of the assessing authority under that section is confined to the rectification of mistakes apparent on the face of the record of the assessment and it does not envisage the rectification of an error of judgment. 9.. Learned counsel also relied on the decision of Jainson Hosiery Industries v. Assessing Authority [1991] 83 STC 26, in which it has been held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as under: Held, allowing the petition, that under section 21-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, a mistake which can be rectified should be clear from the record without the need for elaborate arguments. The Presiding Officer in the present case had merely substituted his own view for that of his predecessor, and no apparent mistake having been pointed out from the record the condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction under section 21-A had not been satisfied. The orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case of Shree Bhagwati Roller Flour Mills [1998] 108 STC 157, is relevant on the point of rectification of error where the apex Court has held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to revise the order on disputed question of law. The decision in case of Modi Industries Limited [1977] 40 STC 73 (SC), is mainly on the point of operation of the amending Act. 13.. I have also gone through the review/revised order (annexure F) passed by respondent No. 1 on March 3, 1992 and in his judgment the decision was reviewed for not correcting any error apparent on the face of record but on the basis of the decisions of Board of Revenue referred to in this order on the question of grant of set-off, which was purely a point of law. The earlier order was reviewed on merits and a set-off which was granted at 2.5 per cent was withdrawn and set-off at 2 per cent was allowed. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions of the apex Court, in case of Shree Bhagwati Roller Flour Mills [1998] 108 STC 157 the respondent No. 1, Additional Commissioner, could not exercise its power of rectification under section 45 and cannot reverse his decision on merits. The conclusion, arrived at by the Additional Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
