TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not merit any consideration and stands dismissed. - Writ Petition Nos. 5265, 5551, 5552 of 2019 (T–RES). - - - Dated:- 31-1-2019 - Mrs. S. Sujatha J. For the Petitioner : N. Venkataraman , Senior Counsel for Smt. Veena J. Kamath For the Respondent : T. K. Vedamurthy , Additional Government Advocate ORDER MRS. S. SUJATHA J. - 1. The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the respondent under section 69(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the rectification application dated January 9, 2017 afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and providing copy of any adverse materials relied upon by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first appellate authority would expeditiously pass the order, in consequence of the hearing, the respondent passed the order directing the Deputy Commissioner (Audit)-6.4 (Assessing Officer) to recompute the rectification order and then issue fresh demand notice. Besides this, the petitioner also filed STA Nos. 7 to 9 of 2017 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal challenging the order of the Joint Commissioner dated December 27, 2016 in addition to filing the rectification application dated January 9, 2017, for rectifying the order dated December 27, 2016 passed by the respondent. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on January 18, 2017 and issued a revised demand notice in terms of the order of the respondent dated December 27, 2016. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons. It was argued that the order of the quasi-judicial authority lacking reasons is void ab-initio and unsustainable. 4. According to the learned senior counsel number of pouches and machine capacity were wrongly construed by the respondent and the relevant notifications applicable to the case on hand were not considered. There was an arithmetical error in the computation of tax liability. These vital aspects being the mistake apparent on the face of the record, rectification application ought to have been allowed. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Dishnet Wireless Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [2011] 45 VST 255 (Karn). 5. The learned Additional Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A reading of this provision makes it clear that this provision can be invoked to rectify any mistake apparent from record. It is well-settled law that a mistake apparent on record must be patently glaring and not to be discovered by further investigation or an enquiry or considering the arguments or proof of a debatable issue. The scope of rectification is limited. The same cannot be enlarged to re-examine the concluded issues on which there may be permissible different opinions. The authority becomes functus officio on concluding the proceedings and the same cannot be reopened to revisit the concluded issues in the guise of rectification. 8. The arguments of the learned senior counsel that the order impugned is not a speaking order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings drawn by the respondent, consideration of the rectification application filed, to rectify the order dated December 27, 2016 would not arise. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons assigned by the respondent, at any stretch of imagination, the order impugned cannot be held to be a nonspeaking order. 10. In the case of Dishnet Wireless Limited [2011] 45 VST 255 (Karn), the orders impugned were not speaking orders and in addition, the decision relied upon by the assessing officer in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in [2009] 22 VST 465 (Karn) was set aside by the apex court by Special Leave Petition (Civil Appeal) No. 4481 of 2009 dated March 2, 2009 (Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2010] 32 VST 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1419, Titaghur Paper Mills case (Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315 (SC) ; [1983] 142 ITR 663 (SC) ; [1983] 2 SCC 433 ; [1983] SCC (Tax) 131 ; AIR 1983 SC 603) and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 12. The endeavour made by the learned senior counsel to bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|