9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abad Division, Hyderabad that only clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record are liable to be corrected under Rule 60 is unexceptionable - there are no error in the order passed by the 2nd respondent warranting interference by us in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. - WRIT PETITION No.6441 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2021 - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD Petitioner Advocate : V Murali Manohar Respondent Advocate : GP For Commercial Tax TG O R D E R: (Per Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao) The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of machinery and also trading in mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C declaration forms, which were not subjected to tax during the course of assessment by 3rd respondent; and the 2nd respondent, without any plausible reasons, treated the two legs of transit sales transactions as two disjoint and separate transactions and subjected an exempt transaction to double taxation. 8. After such application under Rule 60 was filed by petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dt.03-12-2020 asking the petitioner to show cause why the application under Rule 60 should not be rejected for the reason that only arithmetical or clerical mistakes apparent from record are amenable to rectification under Rule 60. 9. Petitioner gave a detailed explanation dt.02-01-2021 pointing out how the 2nd respondent p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 60 and only clerical and arithmetical mistakes alone are amenable to rectification, and the contentions of the petitioner do not fall in that category. 12. Assailing the same, this Writ Petition is filed. 13. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the rejection of the application filed under Rule 60 by 2nd respondent is contrary to law and is unsustainable. 14. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that there was a Nil Assessment Order AAO No.20043 dt.23-03-2013 passed under the CST Act, 1956 in favour of the petitioner for the year 2009-10 by the 3rd respondent. 15. This order had been revised by 2nd respondent in D.C.No.125 dt.28-02-2017 under Section 32 of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 r/w Section 9(2) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al de hors the assessment record. .. 19. On merits, the following contentions were also raised: 1. Turnover of ₹ 2,03,308-00:- According to the assesses, this turnover was subjected to tax @ 12.5% by the Revisional authority but while giving effect to the order of the Revisional Authority, the assessing authority had adopted the turnover as ₹ 20,20,208-00 by mistake. 2. Turnover of ₹ 2,23,61,482-00:- According to the assessees, this turnover is covered by C forms issued by local dealers which was taxed @ 12.5% by the then Revisional Authority rejecting their claim of concessional rate of tax. 3. Turnover of ₹ 13,36,61,482-00:- According to the assessees, this turnover represents transit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he finding of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad that only clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record are liable to be corrected under Rule 60 is unexceptionable and that points 2 to 4 raised by the Assessee was rightly rejected by 2nd respondent on the ground that they do not fall within the said category. 23. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the order passed by the 2nd respondent warranting interference by us in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. 25. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VAT & Sales Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
