TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xes[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.). was rendered on 18th January, 1966. He filed an application in 1967 stating that a turnover of Rs. 8,33,024.21 has to be excluded from the taxable turnover since according to the decision in the Khosla's case[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.)., they should be deemed to be sales which occasioned the import. It is conceded that this question was never mooted or argued before the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the petitioner did not even make it a ground for appeal as against the order of the appellate authority. The Tribunal interpreting the law as it existed and in the absence of any representation that the turnover as above is excludable as non-taxable turnover, did not advert to it at all. In fact, there was no mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is, therefore, necessary that the records should show that the Appellate Tribunal applied its mind over a broad aspect which was argued before it and decided the case one way or the other. If in the course of such a decision, it commits an error and that error continues to remain on record, it would be a pursuable error or an apparent error on record. In those circumstances, the person aggrieved is entitled to approach the appropriate authority including the Appellate Tribunal to rectify such an error which is so patent on the record. In a given case where the assessee fails to advert to a particular circumstance or detail and if such an invitation for a decision on the facts so placed was necessary but was not undertaken by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the course of import; nor was it called upon to do so by any argument of counsel before it at that time. In this state of affairs, I fail to see how any error at all has crept into the record and if no such error has crept into the record, there can be no apparent error either. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was right in having dismissed the application to rectify an error which did not exist in its order. There was no public duty on the part of the Tribunal to correct an error which was not there in the order. In fact, that is the only thing they are expected to do under section 55. The application for rectification has been rightly rejected. On the only ground that the petitioner secured certain rights as a result of the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
