9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer is confined only to see whether the order requires a rectification. Thus, without noting this subtle, but very important legal distinction, the first respondent has made certain observations and did not go into the specific aspect raised by the petitioner with reference to the provision of the Additional Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent calls for interference. The first respondent was required to consider only whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record and the error pointed out by the petitioner was not an error apparent on the face of the record. Unfortunately, the first respondent proceeded to re-examine the entire matter and opined that the earlier order, dated 02.05.2007, was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice to the dealer and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Section 55(2) Where such rectification has the effect of reducing an assessment or penalty, the assessing authority shall make any refund which may be due to the dealer. Section 55(3) Where any such rectification has the effect of enhancing an assessment or penalty, the assessing authority shall give the dealer a revised notice of assessment or penalty and the thereupon the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall apply as if such notice had been given in the first instance. Section 55(3-A) The powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the assessing authorities even though the original order of assessment, if any, pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s seen that the first respondent had disposed of the petitioner's appeal in T.A.No.183 of 2003, by order dated 02.05.2007. The Revenue did not prefer any tax case revision against the order before this Court. The first respondent while passing the order, dated 02.05.2007, held that admittedly, the taxable turnover for the assessment year 1996-97 upto 31.07.1996, was shown only for ₹ 44,36,719/-, so the rate of tax can be considered only upto the period 31.06.1996 and not for the whole year. Therefore, the first respondent was of the view that for the period upto 31.07.1996, (prior to assessment), the tax has to be levied at 1.5% and not at 2% for that period, the turnover does not exceed more than ₹ 1,00,00,000/-. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eading of the impugned order would show that the first respondent had very serious reservations about the order passed by the first respondent dated 02.05.2007. However, the first respondent, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 55 of the Act cannot act as an appellate authority or a reviewing authority over the earlier order and the power is confined only to see whether the order requires a rectification. Thus, without noting this subtle, but very important legal distinction, the first respondent has made certain observations and did not go into the specific aspect raised by the petitioner with reference to the provision of the Additional Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent calls for interference. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
