9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of benefit under the Incentive Scheme of 1987 and, therefore, no such additional tax could be imposed upon him is also of no avail. The said Incentive Scheme operated in a different field for granting exemption from taxes on the basis of eligible investment made by the assessee during the operative period of the Scheme. Such exemption could not override the exemption wrongly granted to the assessee on account of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 8(1) of the CST Act by not furnishing "C" form as prescribed in law. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of Tax Board dated June 18, 2003 is set aside. The Revenue would be entitled to recover the due tax in pursuance of reassessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing authority could invoke jurisdiction to rectify the mistake apparent on the face of record enshrined under section 17 of the Act and thus the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the assessee. The assessee took the matter further in second appeal before the Tax Board which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated June 18, 2003 and learned Tax Board held that learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) could not convert the order passed under section 12 of the Act on March 14, 1997 as one under section 17 of the Act while passing the order dated February 16, 2001 as by that time the limitation under section 17 had run out. The learned Tax Board also found that since no notice in prescribed form No. 33 for invoking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity in the order dated March 14, 1997 which was passed following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court with reference to section 12 of the Act. He also contended that resort to section 12 by the learned CTO was correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned assessment order was wrongly set aside by the learned Tax Board by impugned order dated June 18, 2003 and the present revisions deserve to be allowed. On the side opposite, Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, urged that since no notice under section 17 was given to the assessee the learned Tax Board had rightly held that assessment could not be rectified under section 17 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am Vegetables Products [1996] 101 STC 547; AIR 1996 SC 3178. Both the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tax Board have apparently fallen into error in holding that resort could be had in such circumstance to provisions of section 17 of the Act applicable for rectification of apparent mistake on the face of record. Though by some stretch of argument, such reassessment could also fall within the scope of rectification of apparent mistake as there is no water-tight compartment between the two powers, yet the learned counsel for Revenue rightly contends that mention of wrong provision even it can be said to be so for withdrawing the exemption and recovering such taxes from the assessee would not vitiate the assessment order. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
