Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 929 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - it is alleged that the impugned order is perverse and is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- 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. An appreciation of the impugned order reveals that the same is not a cryptic order. The assessing officer has considered the various contentions raised by the assessee in the application for rectification. The correctness or otherwise of the conclusions of the assessing officer in the rectification order cannot be gone into in this jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Those are matters for consideration under the statutory remedies available - The statutory prescription for grant of an opportunity of hearing is only when the rectification has the effect of enhancing an assessment or penalty. In the instant case, there is no scope for any enhancement of assessment or penalty, as the rectification application was attempted by the assessee itself. However, had the assessee sought for an opportunity of hearing, the situation could have been viewed differently. Since the assessee itself did not seek an opportunity of hearing, it cannot be said that the impugned order was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court had interfered with the impugned orders on facts that were peculiar therein or for not granting an opportunity of hearing even after requesting for such a hearing. In the instant case, as already mentioned, an opportunity for hearing was never requested and further, the impugned order had considered the points raised by the petitioner in the rectification application. The question whether the findings in the order declining rectification is correct or not cannot be gone into in this jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The observations in this judgment are not based on specific factual consideration of issues arising in the instant case. Since the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy against the order of rectification, the observations made in this judgment shall not be treated as a finding on the merits of the rectification petition. If any statutory remedy is invoked, the same shall be considered untrammelled by any of the observations in this judgment. Petition dismissed.
|