Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (2) TMI 1097

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the State. The Trade Tax Revision No. 163 of 2002 has been filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95 against the order of the Tribunal dated February 8, 2000. The questions of law referred to are hereunder: "(1) Whether the insulating varnish which is used exclusively in electrical industry for strengthening the resistance of electrical motors and transformers, etc., and has no other use, is liable to be taxed as an accessory to electrical goods under the Notification No. 5784, dated July 31, 1992? (2) Whether the Trade Tax Officer was justifying in passing the order under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in completely overlooking the other facts and materials on record, inclu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble opportunity of being heard has been given to the dealer or other person likely to be affected by such enhancement. (2) Where such rectification has the effect of enhancing the assessment, the assessing authority concerned shall serve on the dealer a revised notice of demand in the prescribed form and therefrom all the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder shall apply, as if such notice had been served in the first instance." The assessee was carrying on the business of sales of electrical insulating varnish and thinner which are used exclusively for insulation of electrical motors. The assessee was paying tax on items at 10 per cent in view of a decision of the Madras High Court which was holding the field. In the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the scope of section 22 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act to make or pass order on issues which are debatable. He has argued that the jurisdiction under section 22 is confined to make corrections and mistakes which are apparent on the face of the order. He has argued that on the date when the assessment for the assessment year 1994-95 was made, the judgment of this court was no where in sight and in fact it was the Madras High Court judgment which was holding the field. He has argued that the issue whether varnish and paints manufactured by the assessee was to be treated as a varnish as it is commonly understand as an adhesive was definitely a debatable question and could not be considered as mistake which is "apparent on the record" and theref .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e intends to do in the present case is precisely the substitution of the order which according to us is not permissible under the provisions of section 22 and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in holding that there was mistake apparent on the face of the record. In order to bring an application under section 22, the mistake must be 'apparent' from the record. Section 22 does not enable an order to be reversed by revision or by review, but permits only some error which is apparent on the face of the record to be corrected. Where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. It is, no doubt, true that a mistake capable of being rectified under section 22 is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectifications." The learned standing counsel has argued that the application made by the Department under section 22 of the Act was liable to be allowed as this court has passed a judgment for the assessment year 1992-93 in which it has come to the conclusion that the item in dispute is to be taxed as varnish and paints at 15 per cent. However, having heard learned counsel for both the sides and having perused the matters on record, I am not inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned standing counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the issue was clearly debatable as to whether the item produced .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates