9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired any correction. - Tribunal exercised powers of review which it did not possess and recalled its earlier order in its entirety. This was impermissible in law and in the given facts and circumstances. All the questions and which have been referred for this Court's opinion and answer arise from the Tribunal's apparent mistake in reviewing its order. If there was no power conferred in it by which it could have recalled the entire order and the alleged mistakes pointed out were as if the revenue was challenging the original order delivered by the Tribunal in Appeal on merits, then, all the more we do not think that the Tribunal was justified in passing an order allowing the application of the Revenue - Decided in favour of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest charged on the grounds that the Appellant had suffered heavy loss due to financial difficulties, that his application for grant of Amnesty was rejected on technical ground though he had deposited the entire amount of tax assessed and that the assessment itself was completed after 6 years? 2. The answers are sought in the backdrop of the following admitted facts and circumstances:- The dealer before the Tribunal and before us is engaged in manufacture and sale of medicines. It was assessed by the sales tax department and for financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The assessment order was passed on 31st March, 2004. Being aggrieved by the said order, two Appeals were filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) Pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section which was invoked by the dealer. The Revenue did not object to it. Still the Rectification Application was filed and an order has been made so as to nullify the consent of the Revenue and the satisfaction of the Tribunal recorded earlier. Therefore, he submits that this question be answered in favour of the dealer and against the Revenue. 4. Mr.B.B. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the Revenue on the other hand supports the order of the Tribunal. He submits that in the Rectification Application, it was pointed out that there is a provision under the B.S.T. Act for 1996-97 and which provided that interest cannot be levied for more than 36%. However, there were two financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98 involved. The no objection of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of interest under section 36(3)(b) to 36% in both Second Appeals as per provisions of Section 36(3)(b) of B.S.T. Act. Ld. Advocate has given the working as follows: F.Y. Amount of interest Balance to be paid by the appellant 1996-97 Rs.21,352/-Rs.44,600/- 1997-98 Rs.19,280/- ₹ 53,718/- 4. Ld. Advocate further submits that appellant had paid 10% interest as shown above but his application under the Amnesty Scheme 2004 was rejected. Otherwise interest payable would have been 10% only. 5. Ld. Sales Tax Officer Mr.R.S. Deoraj who represented the revenue has raised no objection to reduce interest levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercised subject to Rules, we are informed that presently there are no Rules in the field. 7. In the Rectification Application what the Revenue projected was the absence of power to remit or reduce the interest. It contended that the power to remit or reduce the interest could not have been exercised, so as to reduce the rate of interest for the financial year 1997-98. In paragraph 2 of the Rectification. 8. We are of the opinion that although there was a specific objection to this Rectification Application, the Tribunal was informed that it has no powers to review its earlier orders, yet, on 1st April, 2006, the Tribunal virtually reheard the Appeal. It ignored its earlier observations and the findings and concluded that the dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Tribunal completely omitted from consideration the first proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section 3 of Section 36. That proviso enabled the Appellate Authority to remit the whole or any part of the interest payable in respect of any period. It was that power which was invoked and exercised. Once the powers were exercised on the satisfaction that the dealer had financial difficulties, the manufacturing operations had come to a standstill, then, there was no case made out for Rectification. For there was no mistake and apparent on the face of the record which required any correction. 10. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal exercised powers of review which it did not possess and recalled its earlier order in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
