Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1982 (12) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inal orders were passed by the Tribunal on 31st January, 1978, and 25th April, 1978, respectively. Those orders had been rendered in appeals filed by two assessees who were hoteliers. They contended before the Tribunal that the receipts from their hotel business could not be subjected to sales tax as sales turnover. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal in their orders dated 25th April, 1978, and 31st January, 1978. Subsequently, on 7th September, 1978, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [1978] 42 STC 386 (SC). In this judgment it was held that where eatables were sold for consumption within the precincts of the hotel there was no sale involved which is susceptible .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... resent case, with the fullest information on facts made available to the Tribunal and with the most up to date knowledge of the law, it would still be impossible for such a body to have anticipated what the Supreme Court's decision would have been a few months later. It follows, therefore, that the error could not be said to be an apparent error within the meaning of section 55. The learned counsel for the assessees put forward the well-known doctrine of jurisprudence that whenever a court declares what the law is, it takes effect, not from the date of the judgment, but from the very date of the commencement of the law in question. This is a well-known fiction of our jurisprudence. Cynics sometimes refer to this doctrine by describing c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... parent subsequent to the commission of the error. This argument is misconceived. Section 55 contains two things: one is the commission of apparent error; the other is its rectification. The period of limitation prescribed by the section relates to the aspect of rectification. The learned counsel's contention is based on a transference of the limitation period of three years prescribed for rectification to the very basic requirement, namely, the commission of an apparent error which is the provocation for the exercise of the rectificatory power. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the revision petitions, set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal under section 55 and restore their earlier orders in appeal. The State Government will get it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates