1980 (10) TMI 192 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the presentation of the special appeal by an unauthorised person.
2. Applicability and scope of rectification under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.
3. The impact of subsequent rulings on the rectification application.
4. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue in rectifying its earlier order.
5. Consideration of fresh material in a writ of certiorari.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Presentation of the Special Appeal by an Unauthorised Person:
The petitioner-assessee challenged the presentation of the special appeal by Shri K.L. Tunwal, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, as he was neither the assessing authority nor authorised by the assessing authority. The Board of Revenue initially accepted this preliminary objection, relying on the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Gemini Murti Kalakar 1973 RRD 608, which required the presentation to be by the appellant or an authorised agent. The special appeal was dismissed on 31st July, 1974, due to the lack of proper authorisation.

2. Applicability and Scope of Rectification under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954:
The Commercial Taxes Officer filed an application under Section 17 of the Act for rectification of the order dated 31st July, 1974, citing a subsequent ruling in Indl. Chemicals and Plastics' case 1974 RRD 407. The Board accepted this application and restored the appeal for hearing on merits, arguing that the improper presentation had been waived as the opposite party had been heard on the substance of the appeal.

3. Impact of Subsequent Rulings on the Rectification Application:
The petitioner contended that the Board's reliance on Indl. Chemicals and Plastics' case for rectification was improper, as it did not reference the earlier decision in Gemini Murti Kalakar's case. The petitioner argued that a larger Bench should have been constituted to address the conflicting views. The Board had constituted a larger Bench in Khandelwal Enterprises v. Commercial Taxes Officer, which held that the defect of unauthorised presentation should be cured before the case reaches the Bench for argument.

4. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue in Rectifying its Earlier Order:
The court held that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to rectify its judgment dated 31st July, 1974, under Section 17 of the Act based on a subsequent decision. The scope of Section 17 is limited to correcting arithmetical or clerical mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record. The Board's reliance on a subsequent ruling did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

5. Consideration of Fresh Material in a Writ of Certiorari:
The court refused to consider the letter of authorisation dated 26th October, 1973, presented for the first time in the writ petition. The letter was not brought to the notice of the Board of Revenue nor mentioned in the rectification application. The court emphasized that it could not take into consideration fresh material to hold that the lower authority committed an error of jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 16th October, 1976, and 19th September, 1977, and restored its order dated 31st July, 1974. The court held that the Board had no jurisdiction to rectify its earlier order based on a subsequent ruling and that the presentation of the special appeal by an unauthorised person was not valid. The writ petition was allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →