9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected against the order of Tribunal dated August 11, 2005 relating to assessment year 1997-98 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by which, the application under section 22 of the Act has been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a manufacturer of cement. Before the assessing authority, applicant claimed that in the manufacturing of cement 10 to 30 per cent fly ash had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted that such ground has not been considered but rejected the application on the ground that only mistake apparent on the face of record could be rectified under section 22 of the Act and in a case where lengthy argument is required and the issue is debatable, such mistake cannot be rectified under section 22 of the Act and accordingly dismissed the application. Heard the learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hital Prasad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1993] UPTC 60 and Kuldip Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1999] STI 524 (All). The learned standing counsel submitted that under section 22 of the Act only mistake apparent on the face of record, can be rectified, while consideration of ground No. 37 involves lengthy argument and investigation of fact, therefore, Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, but has not been considered in the order, it does not need any argument or investigation of fact. In the present case, Tribunal itself observed that the ground No. 37 has not been considered without requiring any argument and investigation. It is settled principle of law that the Tribunal is duty-bound to consider the grounds taken in the grounds of appeal and argued at the time of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
