9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is invoked alleging that the impugned order is perverse and is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. Petitioner is an assessee under the Act. For the assessment year 2016-17, an order of penalty was issued against the petitioner on 30-10-2021, imposing an amount of Rs. 7,20,50,872/- as penalty under section 67(1) of the Act. 3. Instead of challenging the order of assessment in appeal, petitioner preferred a petition for rectification under section 66 of the Act, pointing out certain specific errors. The main grounds for seeking rectification of the order imposing penalty, related to the conclusion arrived at by the assessing officer and the allegation of turnover suppression based on four slips recovered from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be the cause of a rectification petition and also that the error can be established only by an argument and is therefore not a reason to invoke the power under section 66 of the Act. 7. I have heard Sri.A. Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.M.M Jasmin, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assessing officer went on a totally wrong tangent in rejecting the application for rectification, that too, without granting an opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that the authority erred in failing to note that no elaborate arguments were required to establish the error and that the anomalies pointed out through the rectification petition w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs which could, by a long drawn out process of reasoning, be identified. It was further pointed out that the petitioner itself had not sought any opportunity of hearing and in such circumstances, the impugned order is not open for any rectification or interference. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to bear in mind the statutory provision dealing with the powers of rectification. Section 66 of the KVAT Act deals with the power of rectification and reads as below: 66. Power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record.- (1) Any authority including Appellate Tribunal and Settlement Commission issuing any order or proceedings under this Act may, on application or otherwise, at any time within four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was explained in the said decision that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. It was further observed that when the error alleged is far from self-evident and can be established, only by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be regarded as an error apparent on the face of the record. 12. Of course the above-mentioned decision was not under a taxing statute. However, the scope of the words 'error apparent on the face of the record' as explained in the above decision is seen followed by Courts consistently while interpre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ. 10 .........The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended." 15. Thus when an error is not self-evident, it ceases to be an error apparent. As observed by the Courts, an error that is apparent from the record should be one which is not dependent for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. 16. An appreciation of the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere with the impugned order. 18. The unreported decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the circumstances of this case. In the decision in Punj Lloyd Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (W.P.(C) No.31463 of 2010), this Court had found the order under section 66 to be cryptic and could not discern any application of mind to the grounds raised and hence this Court interfered with the order under section 66 of the Act. Similarly in the decision in M/s. Favourite Constructions Private Limited. v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No.2804 of 2021), this Court interfered since despite a prayer requesting for a hearing on the rectification application, such an opportunity was not granted. Again in the decision in M/s. De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
