9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the order has been rectified, certainly appears to be reviewing its own order and coming to a different conclusion than what was reached by the Tax Board earlier on 27/11/2007. - Tax Board was unjustified in reviewing the order in the garb of rectification order dt.19/01/2011 - Decided in favour of Revenue. - S.B. Sales Tax Revision No.392/2011 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2014 - MR. J.K RANKA, J. Ms. Tanvi Sahai on behalf of Mr. RB Mathur, for the petitioner JUDGEMENT 1. This revision petition was admitted vide order dated.12/12/2013 on the following substantial questions of law:- (1)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in completely changing and revie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) and upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer. She further contends that no occasion arose for passing of the impugned order and there is no mistake apparent u/s 33 by which the order could have been rectified. She contends that in the garb of the rectification order, by the impugned order, the Tax Board has totally reviewed its earlier view which is unjustified, She contends that the scope of rectification u/s 33 is limited and only the mistake apparent on the face of record or clerical or minor errors, can be rectified u/s 33. She relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Makkad Plastic Agencies: JT 2011 (4) SC 203. 3. No one appears on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a period of one year from the date of presentation and where such application is not disposed of within the said period; the same shall be deemed to have been accepted. (4) No rectification under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the date of the order sought to be rectified. (5) An order of rectification which has the effect of increasing the liability of a dealer in any way, shall not be made without affording him an opportunity of being heard. 6. On perusal of the above Section, it is quite clear that the scope of rectification, in my view, is limited and the matter though can be rectified on a mistake apparent, obvious and glaring but every mistake cannot be corrected/rectified by the Tax Board. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the evidence to come to a contrary finding was not available under Section 37 of the Act of 1994 while exercising the power of rectification of error apparent on the face of the records. 7. Under the Act Review is impermissible or coming to a totally different conclusion what was reached earlier. Earlier view cannot be changed in the garb of rectification unless there is a glaring and obvious mistake apparent on the face of record. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balram ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 held as under:- A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
