9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t controversy which makes it very clear that any mistake apparent from the record by a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rajasthan High Court or the Rajasthan Tax Board, therefore, in my view, in the light of the judgment of the honourable apex court, the rectification, insofar as the present facts and circumstances, are concerned, have been correctly made by the assessing officer. It is a matter of fact that when benefit has been extended by the honourable apex court, considering the hardship faced by the similarly situated traders, up to the period when the operation of the judgment of this court was stayed, i.e., April 4, 1994 and when benefit has been denied to all such assessees, who were before the honourable apex court, then by no stretch of imagination, such a benefit beyond April 4, 1994 can be extended to the present respondents. The benefit for all assessees or for all similarly situated assessees would be extended only up to April 4, 1994 as upheld by honourable the apex court and, therefore, in my view, both, i.e., the Tax Board as well as the DC (A) have erred in holding it otherwise. - Decided in favour of Revenue. - S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition Nos. 118 of 2003 & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourable apex court, which is law of the land, the assessing officer issued notice under section 37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and submits that the benefit in so far as the period up to April 4, 1994 is concerned, has been allowed by the assessing officer and benefit beyond April 4, 1994 could not have been allowed nor availed of by the respondent-assessee and, therefore, a notice under section 37, as aforesaid, was issued. He submits that if a judgment has been pronounced by the honourable apex court, then section 37 prescribes that it would be con sidered as a mistake apparent on the face of record. He drew attention of this court on the plain and simple language of section 37. He further submits that there are various authorities of the honourable apex court that benefit granted on the basis of judgment could not be extended beyond the time allowed by the honourable apex court. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. reported in [1997] 89 Comp Cas 619 (SC); [1997] 6 SCC 450. He further submits that the assessing officer has not denied the benefit prior to A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be available to them but the extent to which the benefit under the State Act has been already availed up to April 4, 1994, the date on which the ex parte order of stay was made by this court, on the basis of the eligibility certificates so issued, the State Government would not disturb that position by seeking to recover any amount under that head. 7 Thus by the aforesaid judgment, the honourable apex court came to the conclusion that only benefit was allowable up to April 4, 1994 and not later on. 8 The honourable apex court, again in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mahaveer Oil Industries reported in [1999] 115 STC 29 (SC); [1999] 4 SCC 357, after a detailed analysis of various judgments, has held as under (page 39 in 115 STC): In the premises, the judgment of the High Court, insofar as it sets aside the notification of May 7, 1990 issued under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 is set aside and the notification of May 7, 1990 issued under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 is upheld as valid. The respondents, however, will be entitled to retain the benefits received by them under the Incentive Scheme framed under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act up to April 4, 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntive scheme was not correct and ultimately the notification of May 7, 1990 was upheld as valid. It is also appropriate to quote section 37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 11 1994 which reads as under: 37. Rectification of a mistake. (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, any officer appointed or any authority constituted under the Act may rectify suo motu or otherwise any order passed by him. Explanation: A mistake apparent from the record shall include an order which was valid when it was made and it subsequently rendered invalid by an amendment of the law having retrospective operation or by a judgment of the Supreme Court, the Rajasthan High Court or the Rajasthan Tax Board. (2) No application for rectification shall be filed under sub-section (1) after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the order sought to be rectified. (3) Where an application under sub-section (1) is presented to the assessing authority, appellate authority or Tax Board and a receipt thereof is obtained, it shall be disposed of within a period of one year from date of presentation and where such application is not disposed of within the said pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
