9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebating, then such a error would not amount to error apparent on the face of record and in fact would amount to review of the order, which cannot be done under the garb of an application under Section 22 of the Act, 1948. The rectification as sought by the revisionist, does not amount to error apparent on the face of record, rather it seeks re-examination of the entire issue by dwelling into various transactions and books of account which is not the purport and effect of exercising power under Section 22 of the Act, 1948. There are no merits in the revision and the revision is dismissed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 701 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2020 - Alok Mathur, J. For the Revisionist : N.C. Gup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the aforesaid order was also preferred by the revisionist which was also rejected by means of order dated 12.10.1995. The revisionist aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.1995, preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the Act, 1948, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by means of order dated 18.07.1998, allowed the appeal and directed the Divisional Level Committee to issue exemption certificate (eligibility certificate) in favour of the revisionist within two months in accordance with law. The Tribunal by means of aforesaid order dated 18.07.1998, had allowed the appeal of the revisionist, but had not accepted the documents filed by the authority concerned alongwith the appeal regarding payment of two elec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ionist as well as by the revenue and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for deciding the same fresh within four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The Tribunal by means of order dated 16.01.2007, rejected the appeal of the revisionist and confirmed the order of the Divisional Level Committee. The revisionist thereafter moved an application under Section 22 of the Act, 1948, before the Tribunal for rectification of mistake in the aforesaid order dated 16.01.2007. The Tribunal by means of order dated 01.09.2009 has rejected the application and which order has been impugned in this revision. The instant revision has been filed on the following substantial questions of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b of application under Section 22 of the Act, 1948, the revisionist has sought to reopen the entire issue which has been decided by the Tribunal and that the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, 1948, are not attracted in the present case, inasmuch as no error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out by the revisionist which can be corrected in exercise of power under Section 22 of the Act, 1948. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal has considered the contention raised by the revisionist in detail as well as the directions of this Court, while passing the earlier order. The scope of Section 22 of the Act, 1948 is limited and the same is attracted only when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
